,ANTA  BARBARA  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

,442- 1? 


j£x  Xibris 

This  book  was  presented  to  the  Industrial  Division 
Library    of    Santa    Barbara    State    College    by 


Collection  Sponsored  by  Pi  SIGMA  CM 


RIVERSIDE  TEXTBOOKS 
IN  EDUCATION 

EDITED  BY  ELLWOOD  P.  CUBBERLEY 

PROFESSOR   OF    EDUCATION 
LEZ.AND   STANFORD  JUNIOR    UNIVERSITY 


RIVERSIDE  TEXTBOOKS 
IN   EDUCATION 


RURAL  LIFE  AND   EDUCATION. 

By  E.  P.  CUBBERLEY,  Professor  of  Education,  Leland  Stanford 
Junior  University.  $1.50  net.  Postpaid. 

THE   HYGIENE  OF  THE  SCHOOL  CHILD. 

By  L.  M.  TERMAN,  Associate  Professor  of  Education,  Leland 
Stanford  Junior  University.  $1.65  net.  Postpaid. 

EVOLUTION  OF  THE   EDUCATIONAL  IDEAL. 
By  MABEL  I.  EMERSON,  First  Assistant  in  Charge  of  the  George 
Bancroft  School,  Boston.    $1.00  net.    Postpaid. 

HEALTH  WORK  IN  THE  SCHOOL. 

By  E.  B.  HOAG,  M.D.,  Medical  Director,  Long  Beach  City 
Schools,  Cal.,  and  L.  M.  TERMAN.  $1.60  net.  Postpaid. 

DISCIPLINE  AS  A  SCHOOL   PROBLEM. 
By  A.  C.   PERRY,  JR.,  District  Superintendent  of  Schools,  New 
York  City.    £1.25  net.     Postpaid. 

HOW  TO  TEACH  THE   FUNDAMENTAL  SUBJECTS. 
By  C.  N.  KENDALL,  Commissioner  of  Education  for  New  Jersey, 
and  G.  A.  MIRICK,  formerly  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Education 
for  New  Jersey.    $1.25  net.     Postpaid. 

TEACHING  LITERATURE  IN  THE  GRAMMAR  GRADES  AND 
HIGH   SCHOOL. 

By  EMMA  M.  BOLENIUS,  formerly  Instructor  in  English,  Central 
Commercial  and  Manual  Training  High  School,  Newark,  N.J. 
$1.25  net.  Postpaid. 

PUBLIC  SCHOOL  ADMINISTRATION. 
By  E.  P.  CUBBERLEY.    £1.75  net.    Postpaid. 

THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  THE  COMMON  BRANCHES. 

By  F.  N.  FREEMAN,  Assistant  Professor  of  Educational  Psychol- 
ogy, University  of  Chicago.  $1.25  net.  Postpaid. 

THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE. 
By  L.  M.  TERMAN.    $1.50  net.    Postpaid. 

Test  Material  for  The  Measurement  of  Intelligence.  50  cents  net. 
Postpaid. 

EXPERIMENTAL  EDUCATION. 
By  F.  N.  FREEMAN.    $1.30  net.    Postpaid. 


S'm||pMHI|||ll'l|||||mM||||IHMI|||ini||^  |||l"'ll||l |||H"I5 

=— Mlhilllll llllllMlllllllitlllll llllllnnlllllMlllllllnlllll lllllliillllllh.lllllllnllllll lllllnlllllllMllllllli.111111111111111 Ill llL.lllllllulll  I llL-J 


THE  MEASUREMENT 
OF  INTELLIGENCE 

AN  EXPLANATION  OF  AND  A 
COMPLETE  GUIDE  FOR  THE  USE  OF  THE 
STANFORD  REVISION  AND  EXTENSION  OF 

The  Binet-Simon  Intelligence  Scale 


BY 


s     LEWIS  M.  TERMAN 

PROFESSOR  OF  EDUCATION 
LELAND  STANFORD  JUNIOR  UNIVERSITY 


HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN   COMPANY 

BOSTON          NEW   YORK          CHICAGO 

'Che  fiiticrtfibe  prctftf  Cambridge 


I|||I |  |I"'H|  |lliill||||l»ll|||l |||l |l|M"M|j||l'.l||||M.ill|j|l ||| t||| ||| |||ll"ll||| |||l"'ll|j||MH||||pl.H||p_= 

M I  ln,.iil  lih.ul!lHMiilLHilllu»iilL.JlhnJlih^ 


COPYRIGHT,    1916,    HY   LEWIS   M.   TERMAM 
ALL    RIGHTS   RESERVED 


IKbr  »itirrstbt  J)rtM 

CAMBRIDGE  .  MASSACHUSETTS 
U    .    S        A 


6F 


TTa 


Co  the  .iTlnnorn 

OF 

ALFRED   BIXET 

PATIENT   RESEARCHER,   CREATIVE    THINKER,   UNPRETENTIOUS   SCHOLAR  J 
INSPIRING   AND    FRUITFUL   DEVOTEE 

OF 

INDUCTIVE   AND    DYNAMIC 
PSYCHOLOGY 


mm  CuLLESE  L1BRART 


EDITOR'S  INTRODUCTION 

THE  present  volume  appeals  to  the  editor  of  this  series  as 
one  of  the  most  significant  books,  viewed  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  future  of  our  educational  theory  and  practice, 
that  has  been  issued  in  years.  Not  only  does  the  volume  set 
forth,  in  language  so  simple  that  the  layman  can  easily  under- 
stand, the  large  importance  for  public  education  of  a  careful 
measurement  of  the  intelligence  of  children,  but  it  also 
describes  the  tests  which  are  to  be  given  and  the  entire  pro- 
cedure of  giving  them.  In  a  clear  and  easy  style  the  author 
sets  forth  scientific  facts  of  far-reaching  educational  impor- 
tance, facts  which  it  has  cost  him,  his  students,  and  many 
other  scientific  workers,  years  of  painstaking  labor  to  ac- 
cumulate. 

Only  very  recently,  practically  only  within  the  past  half- 
dozen  years,  have  scientific  workers  begun  to  appreciate 
fully  the  importance  of  intelligence  tests  as  a  guide  to  edu- 
cational procedure,  and  up  to  the  present  we  have  been  able 
to  make  but  little  use  of  such  tests  in  our  schools.  The 
conception  in  itself  has  been  new,  and  the  testing  procedure 
has  been  more  or  less  unrefined  and  technical.  The  following 
somewhat  popular  presentation  of  the  idea  and  of  the  meth- 
ods involved,  itself  based  on  a  scientific  monograph  which 
the  author  is  publishing  elsewhere,  serves  for  the  first  time 
to  set  forth  in  simple  language  the  technical  details  of  giving 
such  intelligence  tests. 

The  educational  significance  of  the  results  to  be  obtained 
from  careful  measurements  of  the  intelligence  of  children 
can  hardly  be  overestimated.  Questions  relating  to  the 
choice  of  studies,  vocational  guidance,  schoolroom  proced- 


viii  EDITOR'S  INTRODUCTION 

ure,  the  grading  of  pupils,  promotional  schemes,  the  study  of 
the  retardation  of  children  in  the  schools,  juvenile  delin- 
quency, and  the  proper  handling  of  subnormals  on  the  one 
hand  and  gifted  children  on  the  other,  —  all  alike  acquire 
new  meaning  and  significance  when  viewed  in  the  light  of 
the  measurement  of  intelligence  as  outlined  in  this  volume. 
As  a  guide  to  the  interpretation  of  the  results  of  other  forms 
of  investigation  relating  to  the  work,  progress,  and  needs  of 
children,  intelligence  tests  form  a  very  valuable  aid.  More 
than  all  other  forms  of  data  combined,  such  tests  give  the 
necessary  information  from  which  a  pupil's  possibilities  of 
future  mental  growth  can  be  foretold,  and  upon  which  his 
further  education  can  be  most  profitably  directed. 

The  publication  of  this  revision  and  extension  of  the 
original  Binet-Simon  scale  for  measuring  intelligence,  with 
the  closer  adaptation  of  it  to  American  conditions  and  needs, 
should  mark  a  distinct  step  in  advance  in  our  educational 
procedure.  It  means  the  perfection  of  another  and  a  very 
important  measuring  stick  for  evaluating  educational  prac- 
tices, and  in  particular  for  diagnosing  individual  possibilities 
and  needs.  Just  now  the  method  is  new,  and  its  use  some- 
what limited,  but  it  is  the  confident  prediction  of  many 
students  of  the  subject  that,  before  long,  intelligence  tests 
will  become  as  much  a  matter  of  necessary  routine  in  school- 
room procedure  as  a  blood-count  now  is  in  physical  diagno- 
sis. That  our  schoolroom  methods  will  in  turn  become  much 
more  intelligent,  and  that  all  classes  of  children,  but  espe- 
cially the  gifted  and  the  slow,  will  profit  by  such  intellectual 
diagnosis,  there  can  be  but  little  question. 

That  any  parent  or  teacher,  without  training,  can  give 
these  tests,  the  author  in  no  way  contends.  However,  the 
observations  of  Dr.  Kohs,  cited  in  Chapter  VII,  as  well  as 
the  experience  of  the  author  and  others  who  have  given 
courses  in  intelligence  testing  to  teachers,  alike  indicate  that 


EDITOR'S  INTRODUCTION  ix 

sufficient  skill  to  enable  teachers  and  school  principals  to 
give  such  tests  intelligently  is  not  especially  difficult  to 
acquire.  This  being  the  case  it  may  be  hoped  that  the  requi- 
site training  to  enable  them  to  handle  these  tests  may  be 
included,  very  soon,  as  a  part  of  the  necessary  pedagogical 
equipment  of  those  who  aspire  to  administrative  positions 
hi  our  public  and  private  schools. 

Besides  being  of  special  importance  to  school  officers  and 
to  students  of  education  in  colleges  and  normal  schools,  this 
volume  can  confidently  be  recommended  to  physicians  and 
social  workers,  and  to  teachers  and  parents  interested  in 
intelligence  measurements,  as  at  once  the  simplest  and  the 
best  explanation  of  the  newly-evolved  intelligence  tests, 
which  has  so  far  appeared  in  print. 

ELLWOOD  P.  CUBBERLEY. 


PREFACE 

THE  constant  and  growing  use  of  the  Binet-Simon  intel- 
ligence scale  in  public  schools,  institutions  for  defectives, 
reform  schools,  juvenile  courts,  and  police  courts  is  suffi- 
cient evidence  of  the  intrinsic  worth  of  the  method.  It  is 
generally  recognized,  however,  that  the  serviceableness  of 
the  scale  has  hitherto  been  seriously  limited,  both  by  the 
lack  of  a  sufficiently  detailed  guide  and  by  a  number  of 
recognized  imperfections  in  the  scale  itself.  The  Stanford 
revision  and  extension  has  been  worked  out  for  the  purpose 
of  correcting  as  many  as  possible  of  these  imperfections, 
and  it  is  here  presented  with  a  rather  minute  description  of 
the  method  as  a  whole  and  of  the  individual  tests. 

The  aim  has  been  to  present  the  explanations  and  instruc- 
tions so  clearly  and  in  such  an  untechnical  form  as  to  make 
the  book  of  use,  not  only  to  the  psychologist,  but  also  to 
the  rank  and  file  of  teachers,  physicians,  and  social  workers. 
More  particularly,  it  is  designed  as  a  text  for  use  in  normal 
schools,  colleges,  and  teachers'  reading-circles. 

While  the  use  of  the  intelligence  scale  for  research  pur- 
poses and  for  accurate  diagnosis  will  of  necessity  always 
be  restricted  to  those  who  have  had  extensive  training  in 
experimental  psychology,  the  author  believes  that  the  time 
has  come  when  its  wider  use  for  more  general  purposes 
should  be  encouraged. 

However,  it  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized  that  no 
one,  whatever  his  previous  training  may  have  been,  can 
make  proper  use  of  the  scale  unless  he  is  willing  to  learn  the 
method  of  procedure  and  scoring  down  to  the  minutest  de- 
tail. A  general  acquaintance  with  the  nature  of  the  indi- 
vidual tests  is  by  no  means  sufficient. 


xii  PREFACE 

Perhaps  the  best  way  to  learn  the  method  will  be  to  begin 
by  studying  the  book  through,  in  order  to  gain  a  general 
acquaintance  with  the  tests;  then,  if  possible,  to  observe  a 
few  examinations;  and  finally  to  take  up  the  procedure  for 
detailed  study  in  connection  with  practice  testing.  Twenty 
or  thirty  tests,  made  with  constant  reference  to  the  pro- 
cedure as  described  in  Part  II,  should  be  sufficient  to  pre- 
pare the  teacher  or  physician  to  make  profitable  use  of  the 
scale. 

The  Stanford  revision  of  the  scale  is  the  result  of  a  number 
of  investigations,  made  possible  by  the  cooperation  of  the 
author's  graduate  students.  Grateful  acknowledgment  is 
especially  due  to  Professor  H.  G.  Childs,  Miss  Grace  Lyman, 
Dr.  George  Ordahl,  Dr.  Louise  Ellison  Ordahl,  Miss  Neva 
Galbreath,  Mr.  Wilford  Talbert,  Mr.  J.  Harold  Williams, 
and  Mr.  Herbert  E.  Knollin.  Without  their  assistance  this 
book  could  not  have  been  written. 

STANFORD  UNIVERSITY, 
April,  1916. 


CONTENTS 

PART  I.  PROBLEMS  AND  RESULTS 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS 8 

Intelligence  tests  of  retarded  school  children.  Intelligence 
tests  of  the  feeble-minded.  Intelligence  tests  of  delinquents. 
Intelligence  tests  of  superior  children.  Intelligence  tests  as  a  basis 
for  grading.  Intelligence  tests  for  vocational  fitness.  Other  uses 
of  intelligence  tests. 

CHAPTER  II 

SOURCES  OP  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  INTELLIGENCE       ...    22 

Are  intelligence  tests  superfluous?  The  necessity  of  standards. 
The  intelligence  of  retarded  children  usually  overestimated.  The 
intelligence  of  superior  children  usually  underestimated.  Other 
fallacies  in  the  estimation  of  intelligence.  Binet's  questionnaire 
on  teachers'  methods  of  judging  intelligence.  Binet's  experiment 
on  how  teachers  test  intelligence. 

CHAPTER  HI 

DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD     ....    36 

Essential  nature  of  the  scale.  How  the  scale  was  derived.  List 
of  tests.  How  the  scale  is  used.  Special  characteristics  of  the 
Binet-Simon  method.  The  use  of  age  standards.  The  kind  of 
mental  functions  brought  into  play.  Binet  would  test "  general  in- 
telligence." Binet's  conception  of  general  intelligence.  Other 
conceptions  of  intelligence.  Guiding  principles  in  choice  and  ar- 
rangement of  tests.  Some  avowed  limitations  of  the  Binet  tests. 

CHAPTER  IV 

NATURE  OF  THE  STANFORD  REVISION  AND  EXTENSION   .    .    51 

Sources  of  data.  Method  of  arriving  at  a  revision.  List  of  tests 
in  the  Stanford  revision  and  extension.  Summary  of  changes. 
Effects  of  the  revision  on  the  mental  ages  secured. 


xiv  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  V 

ANALYSIS  OF  ONE  THOUSAND  INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS     .    65 

The  distribution  of  intelligence.  The  validity  of  the  intelligence 
quotient.  Sex  differences.  Intelligence  of  the  different  social 
classes.  The  relation  of  the  I  Q  to  the  quality  of  the  child's 
school  work.  The  relation  between  I  Q  and  grade  progress. 
Correlation  between  I  Q  and  the  teachers'  estimates  of  the 
children's  intelligence.  The  validity  of  the  individual  tests. 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  VARIOUS  INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS     78 

Frequency  of  different  degrees  of  intelligence.  Classification  of 
intelligence  quotients.  Feeble-mindedness.  Border-line  cases. 
Examples  of  border-line  deficiency.  Dull  normals.  Average 
intelligence.  Superior  intelligence.  Very  superior  intelligence. 
Examples  of  very  superior  intelligence.  Genius  and  "near" 
genius.  Is  the  I  Q  often  misleading? 

CHAPTER  VH 

RELIABILITY  OF  THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD      ....  105 

General  value  of  the  method.  Dependence  of  the  scale's  relia- 
bility on  the  training  of  the  examiner.  Influence  of  the  subject's 
attitude.  The  influence  of  coaching.  Reliability  of  repeated  tests. 
Influence  of  social  and  educational  advantages. 


PART  II 

GUIDE  FOR  THE  USE  OF  THE  STANFORD 
REVISION  AND  EXTENSION 

CHAPTER  VHI 

GENERAL  INSTRUCTIONS 121 

Necessity  of  securing  attention  and  effort.  Quiet  and  seclusion. 
Presence  of  others.  Getting  into  rapport.  Keeping  the  child  en- 
couraged. The  importance  of  tact.  Personality  of  the  examiner. 
The  avoidance  of  fatigue.  Duration  of  the  examination.  Desir- 
able range  of  testing.  Order  of  giving  the  tests.  Coaxing  to  be 
avoided.  Adhering  to  formula.  Scoring.  Recording  responses. 
Scattering  of  successes.  Supplementary  considerations.  Alterna- 


CONTENTS  xv 

live  tests.  Finding  mental  age.  The  use  of  the  intelligence  quo- 
tient. How  to  find  the  I  Q  of  adult  subjects.  Material  for  use  in 
testing. 

CHAPTER  IX 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOB  YEAR  III 

1.  Pointing  to  parts  of  the  body 142 

2.  Naming  familiar  objects 143 

3.  Enumeration  of  objects  in  pictures 145 

4.  Giving  sex 146 

5.  Giving  the  family  name 147 

6.  Repeating  six  to  seven  syllables 149 

Alternative  test:  Repeating  three  digits 150 

CHAPTER  X 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  IV 

1.  Comparison  of  lines 151 

2.  Discrimination  of  forms 152 

3.  Counting  four  pennies 154 

4.  Copying  a  square 155 

5.  Comprehension,  first  degree 157 

6.  Repeating  four  digits 159 

Alternative  test:  Repeating  twelve  to  thirteen  syllables   .      .  160 

CHAPTER  XI 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  V 

1.  Comparison  of  weights 161 

2.  Naming  colors 163 

3.  /Esthetic  comparison 1 G5 

4.  Giving  definitions  in  terms  of  use 167 

5.  The  game  of  patience 169 

0.  Three  commissions          172 

Alternative  test:  Giving  age _  .      .      .  173 

CHAPTER  XH 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  VI 

1.  Distinguishing  right  and  left 175 

2.  Finding  omissions  in  pictures 178 

3.  Counting  thirteen  pennies 180 

4.  Comprehension,  second  degree 181 


xvi  CONTENTS 

5.  Naming  four  coins 184 

6.  Repeating  sixteen  to  eighteen  syllables 185 

Alternative  test:  Forenoon  and  afternoon 187 

CHAPTER  XIII 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOB  YEAR  VII 

1.  Giving  the  number  of  fingers 189 

2.  Description  of  pictures 190 

3.  Repeating  five  digits 193 

4.  Tying  a  bow-knot 196 

5.  Giving  differences  from  memory 199 

6.  Copying  a  diamond 204 

Alternative  test  1 :  Naming  the  days  of  the  week       .       .       .   205 
Alternative  test  2:  Repeating  three  digits  reversed    .      .      .  207 

CHAPTER  XIV 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  VIII 

1.  The  ball-and-field  test 210 

2.  Counting  backwards  from  20  to  1 213 

3.  Comprehension,  third  degree 215 

4.  Giving  similarities,  two  things 217 

5.  Giving  definitions  superior  to  use 221 

6.  Vocabulary  (20  definitions,  3600  words) 224 

Alternative  test  1 :  Naming  six  coins 231 

Alternative  test  2:  Writing  from  dictation 231 

CHAPTER  XV 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  IX 

1.  Giving  the  date 234 

2.  Arranging  five  weights 236 

3.  Making  change 240 

4.  Repeating  four  digits  reversed 242 

5.  Using  three  words  in  a  sentence 242 

6.  Finding  rhymes 248 

Alternative  test  1 :  Naming  the  months 251 

Alternative  test  2:  Counting  the  value  of  stamps       .      .      .  252 

CHAPTER  XVI 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  X 

1.  Vocabulary  (30  definitions,  5400  words) 255 

2.  Detecting  absurdities 255 


CONTENTS  xvii 

3.  Drawing  designs  from  memory 260 

4.  Reading  for  eight  memories 262 

5.  Comprehension,  fourth  degree 268 

6.  Naming  sixty  words 272 

Alternative  test  1 :  Repeating  six  digits 277 

Alternative  test  2:  Repeating  twenty  to  twenty-two  syllables  277 

Alternative  test  3:  Healy's  Construction  Puzzle  A  .      .      .  278 


CHAPTER  XVII 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  XII 

1.  Vocabulary  (40  definitions,  7200  words) 281 

2.  Defining  abstract  words 281 

3.  The  ball-and-field  test  (superior  plan) 286 

4.  Dissected  sentences 286 

5.  Interpretation  of  fables  (score  4) 290 

6.  Repeating  five  digits  reversed 301 

7.  Interpretation  of  pictures 302 

8.  Giving  similarities,  three  things 306 

CHAPTER  XVm 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  XIV 

1.  Vocabulary  (50  definitions,  9000  words) 310 

2.  Induction  test:  finding  a  rule 310 

3.  Giving  differences  between  a  president  and  a  king     .      .      .313 

4.  Problem  questions 315 

5.  Arithmetical  reasoning 319 

6.  Reversing  hands  of  a  clock 321 

Alternative  test:  Repeating  seven  digits 322 

CHAPTER  XIX 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  "AVERAGE  ADULT" 

1.  Vocabulary  (65  definitions,  11,700  words) 324 

2.  Interpretation  of  fables  (score  8) 324 

3.  Differences  between  abstract  terms 324 

4.  Problem  of  the  enclosed  boxes 327 

5.  Repeating  six  digits  reversed 329 

6.  Using  a  code 330 

Alternative  test  1:  Repeating  twenty-eight  syllables        .      .  332 

Alternative  test  2:  Comprehension  of  physical  relations  .       .  333 


xviii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XX 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  "SUPERIOR  ADULT" 

1.  Vocabulary  (75  definitions,  13,500  words) 338 

2.  Binet's  paper-cutting  test 338 

8.  Repeating  eight  digits 340 

4.  Repeating  thought  of  passage 340 

5.  Repeating  seven  digits  reversed 345 

6.  Ingenuity  test 345 

SELECTED  REFERENCES 349 

INDEX  .  359 


FIGURES  AND  DIAGRAMS 

1.  Distribution  of  Mental  Ages  of  62  Normal  Adults     ....  55 

2.  Distribution  of  I  Q's  of  905  Unselected  Children,  5-14  Years  of  Age  66 

3.  Median  I  Q  of  457  Boys  and  448  Girls,  for  the  Ages  5-14  Years  .  69 

4.  Diamond  drawn  by  R.  W.;  Age  13-10;  Mental  Age  7-6  .      .      .82 

5.  Writing  from  Dictation.  R.  M.,  Age  15;  Mental  Age  9   ...  83 

6.  Ball  and  Field  Test.  I.  M.,  Age  14-2;  Mental  Age  9       ...  84 

7.  Diamond  drawn  by  A.  W 85 

8.  Drawing  Designs  from  Memory.    H.  S.,  Age  11;  Mental  Age  8-3  86 

9.  Ball  and  Field  Test.  S.  F.,  Age  17;  Mental  Age  11-6      .      .      .  88 

10.  Writing  from  Dictation.  C.  P.,  Age  10-2;  Mental  Age  7-11  .      .  90 

11.  Ball  and  Field  Test.  M.  P.,  Age  14;  Mental  Age  10-8    ...  91 

12.  Ball  and  Field  Test.  R.  G.,  Age  13-5;  Mental  Age  10-6        .      .  93 

13.  Ball  and  Field  Test.   E.  B.,  Age  7-9;  I  Q  130 98 

14.  Ball  and  Field  Test.  F.  McA.,  Age  10-3;  Mental  Age  14-6  .      .  100 

15.  Drawing  Designs  from  Memory.    E.  M.,  Age  6-11 ;  Mental  Age  10, 

I  Q  145 101 

16.  Ball  and  Field  Test.  B.F.,  Age  7 -8;  Mental  Age  12-4;  I Q 160       .  102 

17.  Healy  and  Fernald  Construction  Puzzle 279 


THE   MEASUREMENT  OF   INTELLIGENCE 

PART  I 
PROBLEMS  AND  RESULTS 


THE   MEASUREMENT  OF 
INTELLIGENCE 

CHAPTER   I 

THE  USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS 

Intelligence  tests  of  retarded  school  children.  Numerous 
studies  of  the  age-grade  progress  of  school  children  have 
afforded  convincing  evidence  of  the  magnitude  and  serious- 
ness of  the  retardation  problem.  Statistics  collected  in 
hundreds  of  cities  in  the  United  States  show  that  between 
a  third  and  a  half  of  the  school  children  fail  to  progress 
through  the  grades  at  the  expected  rate;  that  from  10  to 
15  per  cent  are  retarded  two  years  or  more;  and  that  from 
5  to  8  per  cent  are  retarded  at  least  three  years.  More  than 
10  per  cent  of  the  $400,000,000  annually  expended  in  the 
United  States  for  school  instruction  is  devoted  to  re-teach- 
ing children  what  they  have  already  been  taught  but  have 
failed  to  learn. 

The  first  efforts  at  reform  which  resulted  from  these 
findings  were  based  on  the  supposition  that  the  evils  which 
had  been  discovered  could  be  remedied  by  the  individualiz- 
ing of  instruction,  by  improved  methods  of  promotion,  by 
increased  attention  to  children's  health,  and  by  other  re- 
forms in  school  administration.  Although  reforms  along 
these  lines  have  been  productive  of  much  good,  they 
have  nevertheless  been  hi  a  measure  disappointing.  The 
trouble  was,  they  were  too  often  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  under  the  right  conditions  all  children  would  be 


4          THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

equally,  or  almost  equally,  capable  of  making  satisfactory 
school  progress.  Psychological  studies  of  school  children 
by  means  of  standardized  intelligence  tests  have  shown  that 
this  supposition  is  not  in  accord  with  the  facts.  It  has  been 
found  that  children  do  not  fall  into  two  well-defined  groups, 
the  "  feeble-minded  "  and  the  "  normal."  Instead,  there 
are  many  grades  of  intelligence,  ranging  from  idiocy  on  the 
one  hand  to  genius  on  the  other.  Among  those  classed  as 
normal,  vast  individual  differences  have  been  found  to 
exist  in  original  mental  endowment,  differences  which 
affect  profoundly  the  capacity  to  profit  from  school  in- 
struction. 

We  are  beginning  to  realize  that  the  school  must  take  into 
account,  more  seriously  than  it  has  yet  done,  the  existence 
and  significance  of  these  differences  in  endowment.  In- 
stead of  wasting  energy  in  the  vain  attempt  to  hold  men- 
tally slow  and  defective  children  up  to  a  level  of  progress 
which  is  normal  to  the  average  child,  it  will  be  wiser  to 
take  account  of  the  inequalities  of  children  in  original 
endowment  and  to  differentiate  the  course  of  study  in 
such  a  way  that  each  child  will  be  allowed  to  progress  at 
the  rate  which  is  normal  to  him,  whether  that  rate  be  rapid 
or  slow. 

While  we  cannot  hold  all  children  to  the  same  standard 
of  school  progress,  we  can  at  least  prevent  the  kind  of  re- 
tardation which  involves  failure  and  the  repetition  of  a 
school  grade.  It  is  well  enough  recognized  that  children  do 
not  enter  with  very  much  zest  upon  school  work  in  which 
they  have  once  failed.  Failure  crushes  self-confidence  and 
destroys  the  spirit  of  work.  It  is  a  sad  fact  that  a  large 
proportion  of  children  in  the  schools  are  acquiring  the  habit 
of  failure.  The  remedy,  of  course,  is  to  measure  out  the 
work  for  each  child  hi  proportion  to  his  mental  ability. 

Before  an  engineer  constructs  a  railroad  bridge  or  trestle, 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  5 

he  studies  the  materials  to  be  used,  and  learns  by  means  of 
tests  exactly  the  amount  of  strain  per  unit  of  size  his  ma- 
terials will  be  able  to  withstand.  He  does  not  work  empiri- 
cally, and  count  upon  patching  up  the  mistakes  which  may 
later  appear  under  the  stress  of  actual  use.  The  educational 
engineer  should  emulate  this  example.  Tests  and  fore- 
thought must  take  the  place  of  failure  and  patchwork. 
Our  efforts  have  been  too  long  directed  by  "trial  and  error." 
It  is  time  to  leave  off  guessing  and  to  acquire  a  scientific 
knowledge  of  the  material  with  which  we  have  to  deal. 
When  instruction  must  be  repeated,  it  means  that  the 
school,  as  well  as  the  pupil,  has  failed. 

Every  child  who  fails  in  his  school  work  or  is  in  danger  of 
failing  should  be  given  a  mental  examination.  The  examina- 
tion takes  less  than  one  hour,  and  the  result  will  con- 
tribute more  to  a  real  understanding  of  the  case  than  any- 
thing else  that  could  be  done.  It  is  necessary  to  determine 
whether  a  given  child  is  unsuccessful  in  school  because  of 
poor  native  ability,  or  because  of  poor  instruction,  lack  of 
interest,  or  some  other  removable  cause. 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  any  number  of  special 
classes,  if  they  are  to  be  made  the  dumping-ground  for  all 
kinds  of  troublesome  cases  —  the  feeble-minded,  the  physi- 
cally defective,  the  merely  backward,  the  truants,  the  in- 
corrigibles,  etc.  Without  scientific  diagnosis  and  classi- 
fication of  these  children  the  educational  work  of  the  special 
class  must  blunder  along  in  the  dark.  In  such  diagnosis  and 
classification  our  main  reliance  must  always  be  in  mental 
tests,  properly  used  and  properly  interpreted. 

Intelligence  tests  of  the  feeble-minded.  Thus  far  intelli- 
gence tests  have  found  their  chief  application  in  the  identi- 
fication and  grading  of  the  feeble-minded.  Their  value  for 
this  purpose  is  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  necessary  to 
ascertain  the  degree  of  defect  before  it  is  possible  to  decide 


6          THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

intelligently  upon  either  the  content  or  the  method  of  in- 
struction suited  to  the  training  of  the  backward  child. 
In  the  second  place,  intelligence  tests  are  rapidly  extending 
our  conception  of  "  feeble-mindedness  "  to  include  milder 
degrees  of  defect  than  have  generally  been  associated  with 
this  term.  The  earlier  methods  of  diagnosis  caused  a  major- 
ity of  the  higher  grade  defectives  to  be  overlooked.  Pre- 
vious to  the  development  of  psychological  methods  the  low- 
grade  moron  was  about  as  high  a  type  of  defective  as  most 
physicians  or  even  psychologists  were  able  to  identify  as 
feeble-minded. 

Wherever  intelligence  tests  have  been  made  in  any  con- 
siderable number  in  the  schools,  they  have  shown  that  not 
far  from  2  per  cent  of  the  children  enrolled  have  a  grade 
of  intelligence  which,  however  long  they  live,  will  never 
develop  beyond  the  level  which  is  normal  to  the  average 
child  of  11  or  12  years.  The  large  majority  of  these  belong 
to  the  moron  grade;  that  is,  their  mental  development  will 
stop  somewhere  between  the  7-year  and  12-year  level  of 
intelligence,  more  often  between  9  and  12. 

The  more  we  learn  about  such  children,  the  clearer  it  be- 
comes that  they  must  be  looked  upon  as  real  defectives. 
They  may  be  able  to  drag  along  to  the  fourth,  fifth,  or  sixth 
grades,  but  even  by  the  age  of  16  or  18  years  they  are  never 
able  to  cope  successfully  with  the  more  abstract  and  diffi- 
cult parts  of  the  common-school  course  of  study.  They 
may  master  a  certain  amount  of  rote  learning,  such  as  that 
involved  in  reading  and  in  the  manipulation  of  number  com- 
binations, but  they  cannot  be  taught  to  meet  new  condi- 
tions effectively  or  to  think,  reason,  and  judge  as  normal 
persons  do. 

It  is  safe  to  predict  that  in  the  near  future  intelligence 
tests  will  bring  tens  of  thousands  of  these  high-grade  de- 
fectives under  the  surveillance  and  protection  of  society. 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  7 

This  will  ultimately  result  in  curtailing  the  reproduction 
of  feeble-mindedness  and  in  the  elimination  of  an  enor- 
mous amount  of  crime,  pauperism,  and  industrial  inef- 
ficiency. It  is  hardly  necessary  to  emphasize  that  the  high- 
grade  cases,  of  the  type  now  so  frequently  overlooked,  are 
precisely  the  ones  whose  guardianship  it  is  most  important 
for  the  State  to  assume. 

Intelligence  tests  of  delinquents.  One  of  the  most  im- 
portant facts  brought  to  light  by  the  use  of  intelligence 
tests  is  the  frequent  association  of  delinquency  and  mental 
deficiency.  Although  it  has  long  been  recognized  that  the 
proportion  of  feeble-mindedness  among  offenders  is  rather 
large,  the  real  amount  has,  until  recently,  been  underesti- 
mated even  by  the  most  competent  students  of  criminology. 

The  criminologists  have  been  accustomed  to  give  more  at- 
tention to  the  physical  than  to  the  mental  correlates  of  crime. 
Thus,  Lombroso  and  his  followers  subjected  thousands  of 
criminals  to  observation  and  measurement  with  regard  to 
such  physical  traits  as  size  and  shape  of  the  skull,  bilateral 
asymmetries,  anomalies  of  the  ear,  eye,  nose,  palate,  teeth, 
hands,  fingers,  hair,  dermal  sensitivity,  etc.  The  search  was 
for  physical  "stigmata"  characteristic  of  the  "criminal 
type." 

Although  such  studies  performed  an  important  service 
in  creating  a  scientific  interest  in  criminology,  the  theories 
of  Lombroso  have  been  wholly  discredited  by  the  results  of 
intelligence  tests.  Such  tests  have  demonstrated,  beyond 
any  possibility  of  doubt,  that  the  most  important  trait  of 
at  least  25  per  cent  of  our  criminals  is  mental  weakness. 
The  physical  abnormalities  which  have  been  found  so 
common  among  prisoners  are  not  the  stigmata  of  criminal- 
ity, but  the  physical  accompaniments  of  feeble-minded- 
ness.  They  have  no  diagnostic  significance  except  in  so 
far  as  they  are  indications  of  mental  deficiency.  Without 


8          THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

exception,  every  study  which  has  been  made  of  the  in- 
telligence level  of  delinquents  has  furnished  convincing 
testimony  as  to  the  close  relation  existing  between  mental 
weakness  and  moral  abnormality.  Some  of  these  findings 
are  as  follows:  — 

Miss  Renz  tested  100  girls  of  the  Ohio  State  Reformatory  and 
reported  36  per  cent  as  certainly  feeble-minded.  In  every  one  of 
these  cases  the  commitment  papers  had  given  the  pronouncement 
"intellect  sound." 

Under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Goddard  the  Binet  tests  were  given 
to  100  juvenile  court  cases,  chosen  at  random,  in  Newark,  New 
Jersey.  Nearly  half  were  classified  as  feeble-minded.  One  boy  17 
years  old  had  9-year  intelligence;  another  of  15}^  had  8-year 
intelligence. 

Of  56  delinquent  girls  14  to  20  years  of  age  tested  by  Hill  and 
Goddard,  almost  half  belonged  either  to  the  9-  or  the  10-year 
level  of  intelligence. 

Dr.  G.  G.  Fernald's  tests  of  100  prisoners  at  the  Massachusetts 
State  Reformatory  showed  that  at  least  25  per  cent  were  feeble- 
minded. 

Of  1186  girls  tested  by  Miss  Dewson  at  the  State  Industrial 
School  for  Girls  at  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania,  28  per  cent  were 
found  to  have  subnormal  intelligence. 

Dr.  Katherine  Bemont  Davis's  report  on  1000  cases  entered  in 
the  Bedford  Home  for  Women,  New  York,  stated  that  there  was 
no  doubt  but  that  at  least  157  were  feeble-minded.  Recently  there 
has  been  established  at  this  institution  one  of  the  most  important 
research  laboratories  of  the  kind  in  the  United  States,  with  a 
trained  psychologist,  Dr.  Mabel  Fernald,  in  charge. 

Of  564  prostitutes  investigated  by  Dr.  Anna  Dwyer  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Municipal  Court  of  Chicago,  only  3  per  cent  had 
gone  beyond  the  fifth  grade  in  school.  Mental  tests  were  not 
made,  but  from  the  data  given  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  hah*  or 
more  were  feeble-minded. 

Tests,  by  Dr.  George  Ordahl  and  Dr.  Louise  Ellison  Ordahl,  of 
cases  in  the  Geneva  School  for  Girls,  Geneva,  Illinois,  showed 
that,  on  a  conservative  basis  of  classification,  at  least  18  per  cent 
were  feeble-minded.  At  the  Joliet  Prison,  Illinois,  the  same 
authors  found  50  per  cent  of  the  female  prisoners  feeble-minded, 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  9 

and  26  per  cent  of  the  male  prisoners.  At  the  St.  Charles  School 
for  Boys  26  per  cent  were  feeble-minded. 

Testa,  by  Dr.  J.  Harold  Williams,  of  150  delinquents  in  the 
Whittier  State  School  for  Boys,  Whittier,  California,  gave  28  per 
cent  feeble-minded  and  25  per  cent  at  or  near  the  border-line. 
About  300  other  juvenile  delinquents  tested  by  Mr.  Williams  gave 
approximately  the  same  figures.  As  a  result  of  these  findings  a 
research  laboratory  has  been  established  at  the  Whittier  School, 
with  Dr.  Williams  in  charge.  In  the  girls'  division  of  the  Whittier 
School,  Dr.  Grace  Fernald  collected  a  large  amount  of  psychologi- 
cal data  on  more  than  100  delinquent  girls.  The  findings  of  this 
investigation  agree  closely  with  those  of  Dr.  Williams  for  the 
boys. 

At  the  State  Reformatory,  Jeffersonville,  Indiana,  Dr.  von 
Klein-Schmid,  in  an  unusually  thorough  psychological  study  of 
1000  young  adult  prisoners,  finds  the  proportion  of  feeble-minded- 
ness  not  far  from  50  per  cent. 

But  it  Is  needless  to  multiply  statistics.  Those  given  are 
but  samples.  Tests  are  at  present  being  made  in  most  of 
the  progressive  prisons,  reform  schools,  and  juvenile  courts 
throughout  the  country,  and  while  there  are  minor  discrep- 
ancies in  regard  to  the  actual  percentage  who  are  feeble- 
minded, there  is  no  investigator  who  denies  the  fearful 
r6le  played  by  mental  deficiency  in  the  production  of  vice, 
crime,  and  delinquency.1 

Heredity  studies  of  "  degenerate  "  families  have  con- 
firmed, in  a  striking  way,  the  testimony  secured  by  intelli- 
gence tests.  Among  the  best  known  of  such  families  are 
the  "Kallikaks,"  the  "Jukes,"  the  "  Hill  Folk,"  the 
"  Nams,"  the  "  Zeros,"  and  the  "  Ishmaelites." 

The  Kattikak  family.  Martin  Kallikak  was  a  youthful  soldier  in 
the  Revolutionary  War.  At  a  tavern  frequented  by  the  militia  he 
met  a  feeble-minded  girl,  by  whom  he  became  the  father  of  a 
feeble-minded  son.  In  1912  there  were  480  known  direct  descend- 
ants of  this  temporary  union.  It  is  known  that  36  of  these  were 

1  See  References  at  end  of  volume. 


10        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

illegitimates,  that  S3  were  sexually  immoral,  that  24  were  con- 
firmed alcoholics,  and  that  8  kept  houses  of  ill-fame.  The  explana- 
•  tion  of  so  much  immorality  will  be  obvious  when  it  is  stated  that 
of  the  480  descendants,  143  were  known  to  be  feeble-minded,  and 
that  many  of  the  others  were  of  questionable  mentality. 

A  few  years  after  returning  from  the  war  this  same  Martin 
Kallikak  married  a  respectable  girl  of  good  family.  From  this 
union  496  individuals  have  been  traced  hi  direct  descent,  and  in 
this  branch  of  the  family  there  were  no  illegitimate  children,  no 
immoral  women,  and  only  one  man  who  was  sexually  loose.  There 
were  no  criminals,  no  keepers  of  houses  of  ill-fame,  and  only  two 
confirmed  alcoholics.  Again  the  explanation  is  clear  when  it  is 
stated  that  this  branch  of  the  family  did  not  contain  a  single 
feeble-minded  individual.  It  was  made  up  of  doctors,  lawyers, 
judges,  educators,  traders,  and  landholders.1 

The  Hill  Folk.  The  Hill  Folk  are  a  New  England  family  of 
which  709  persons  have  been  traced.  Of  the  married  women,  24 
per  cent  had  given  birth  to  illegitimate  offspring,  and  10  per  cent 
were  prostitutes.  Criminal  tendencies  were  clearly  shown  hi  24 
members  of  the  family,  while  alcoholism  was  still  more  common. 
The  proportion  of  feeble-minded  was  48  per  cent.  It  was  esti- 
mated that  the  Hill  Folk  have  in  the  last  sixty  years  cost  the  State 
of  Massachusetts,  in  charitable  relief,  care  of  feeble-minded, 
epileptic,  and  insane,  conviction  and  punishment  for  crime,  pros- 
titution, pauperism,  etc.,  at  least  $500,000.2 

The  Nam  family  and  the  Jukes  give  equally  dark  pictures  as 
regards  criminality,  licentiousness,  and  alcoholism,  and  although 
feeble-mindedness  was  not  as  fully  investigated  in  these  families 
as  in  the  Kallikaks  and  the  Hill  Folk,  the  evidence  is  strong  that 
it  was  a  leading  trait.  The  784  Nams  who  were  traced  included  187 
alcoholics,  232  women  and  199  men  known  to  be  licentious,  and 
40  who  became  prisoners.  It  is  estimated  that  the  Nams  have 
already  cost  the  State  nearly  $1,500,000.3 

Of  540  Jukes,  practically  one  fifth  were  born  out  of  wedlock,  37 
were  known  to  be  syphilitic,  53  had  been  in  the  poorhouse,  76 

1  H.  H.  Goddard:  The  Kallikak  Family.     (1914.)     141  pp. 

a  Danielson  and  Davenport:  The  Hill  Folk.  Eugenics  Record  Office, 
Memoir  No.  1.  1912.  56  pp. 

3  Estabrook  and  Davenport:  The  Nam  Family.  Eugenics  Record  Of- 
6ce.  Memoir  No.  2.  (1912).  85  pp. 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  11 

had  been  sentenced  to  prison,  and  of  229  women  of  marriageable 
age  128  were  prostitutes.  The  economic  damage  inflicted  upon  the 
State  of  New  York  by  the  Jukes  in  seventy-five  years  was  esti- 
mated at  more  than  $1,300,000,  to  say  nothing  of  diseases  and 
other  evil  influences  which  they  helped  to  spread.1 

But  why  do  the  feeble-minded  tend  so  strongly  to  be- 
come delinquent?  The  answer  may  be  stated  in  simple 
terms.  Morality  depends  upon  two  things:  (a)  the  ability 
to  foresee  and  to  weigh  the  possible  consequences  for  self 
and  others  of  different  kinds  of  behavior;  and  (6)  upon 
the  willingness  and  capacity  to  exercise  self-restraint. 
That  there  are  many  intelligent  criminals  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  (a)  may  exist  with  (&).  On  the  other  hand, 
(6)  presupposes  (a).  In  other  words,  not  all  criminals  are 
feeble-minded,  but  all  feeble-minded  are  at  least  potential 
criminals.  That  every  feeble-minded  woman  is  a  potential 
prostitute  would  hardly  be  disputed  by  any  one.  Moral 
judgment,  like  business  judgment,  social  judgment,  or  any 
other  kind  of  higher  thought  process,  is  a  function  of  in- 
telligence. Morality  cannot  flower  and  fruit  if  intelligence 
remains  infantile. 

All  of  us  in  early  childhood  lacked  moral  responsibility. 
We  were  as  rank  egoists  as  any  criminal.  Respect  for  the 
feelings,  the  property  rights,  or  any  other  kind  of  rights,  of 
others  had  to  be  laboriously  acquired  under  the  whip  of 
discipline.  But  by  degrees  we  learned  that  only  when  in- 
stincts are  curbed,  and  conduct  is  made  to  conform  to 
principles  established  formally  or  accepted  tacitly  by  our 
neighbors,  does  this  become  a  livable  world  for  any  of  us. 
Without  the  intelligence  to  generalize  the  particular,  to 
foresee  distant  consequences  of  present  acts,  to  weigh 
these  foreseen  consequences  in  the  nice  balance  of  imagina- 

1  R.  L.  Dugdale:  The  Jukes.  (Fourth  edition,  1910.)  120  pp.  G.  P. 
Putnam's  Sons. 


1*        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

tion,  morality  cannot  be  learned.  When  the  adult  body, 
with  its  adult  instincts,  is  coupled  with  the  undeveloped 
intelligence  and  weak  inhibitory  powers  of  a  10-year-old 
child,  the  only  possible  outcome,  except  in  those  cases 
where  constant  guardianship  is  exercised  by  relatives  or 
friends,  is  some  form  of  delinquency. 

Considering  the  tremendous  cost  of  vice  and  crime,  which 
in  all  probability  amounts  to  not  less  than  $500,000,000 
per  year  in  the  United  States  alone,  it  is  evident  that  psy- 
chological testing  has  found  here  one  of  its  richest  applica- 
tions. Before  offenders  can  be  subjected  to  rational  treat- 
ment a  mental  diagnosis  is  necessary,  and  while  intelligence 
tests  do  not  constitute  a  complete  psychological  diagnosis, 
they  are,  nevertheless,  its  most  indispensable  part. 

Intelligence  tests  of  superior  children.  The  number  of 
children  with  very  superior  ability  is  approximately  as 
great  as  the  number  of  feeble-minded.  The  future  wel- 
fare of  the  country  hinges,  in  no  small  degree,  upon  the 
right  education  of  these  superior  children.  Whether  civi- 
lization moves  on  and  up  depends  most  on  the  advances 
made  by  creative  thinkers  and  leaders  in  science,  politics, 
art,  morality,  and  religion.  Moderate  ability  can  follow, 
or  imitate,  but  genius  must  show  the  way. 

Through  the  leveling  influences  of  the  educational  lock- 
step  such  children  at  present  are  often  lost  in  the  masses. 
It  is  a  rare  child  who  is  able  to  break  this  lockstep  by  extra 
promotions.  Taking  the  country  over,  the  ratio  of  "  ac- 
celerates "  to  "  retardates  "  in  the  school  is  approximately 
1  to  10.  Through  the  handicapping  influences  of  poverty, 
social  neglect,  physical  defects,  or  educational  maladjust- 
ments, many  potential  leaders  hi  science,  art,  govern- 
ment, and  industry  are  denied  the  opportunity  of  a  normal 
development.  The  use  we  have  made  of  exceptional  ability 
reminds  one  of  the  primitive  methods  of  surface  mining. 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  13 

It  is  necessary  to  explore  the  nation's  hidden  resources  of 
intelligence.  The  common  saying  that  "  genius  will  out  " 
is  one  of  those  dangerous  half-truths  with  which  too  many 
people  rest  content. 

Psychological  tests  show  that  children  of  superior  abil- 
ity are  very  likely  to  be  misunderstood  in  school.  The 
writer  has  tested  more  than  a  hundred  children  who  were 
as  much  above  average  intelligence  as  moron  defectives 
are  below.  The  large  majority  of  these  were  found  located 
below  the  school  grade  warranted  by  their  intellectual 
level.  One  third  had  failed  to  reap  any  advantage  what- 
ever, in  terms  of  promotion,  from  their  very  superior  intel- 
ligence. Even  genius  languishes  when  kept  over-long  at 
tasks  that  are  too  easy. 

Our  data  show  that  teachers  sometimes  fail  entirely  to 
recognize  exceptional  superiority  in  a  pupil,  and  that  the 
degree  of  such  superiority  is  rarely  estimated  with  anything 
like  the  accuracy  which  is  possible  to  the  psychologist  after 
a  one-hour  examination.  B.  F.,  for  example,  was  a  little 
over  7^/2  years  old  when  tested.  He  was  in  the  third  grade, 
and  was  therefore  thought  by  his  teacher  to  be  accelerated 
in  school.  This  boy's  intelligence,  however,  was  found  to 
be  above  the  12-year  level.  There  is  no  doubt  that  his 
mental  ability  would  have  enabled  him,  with  a  few  months 
of  individual  instruction,  to  carry  fifth  or  even  sixth-grade 
work  as  easily  as  third,  and  without  injury  to  body  or 
mind.  Nevertheless,  the  teacher  and  both  the  parents  of 
this  child  had  found  nothing  remarkable  about  him.  In 
reality  he  belongs  to  a  grade  of  genius  not  found  oftener 
than  once  in  several  thousand  cases. 

Another  illustration  is  that  of  a  boy  of  10^  years  who 
tested  at  the  "average  adult"  level.  He  was  doing  superior 
work  in  the  sixth  grade,  but  according  to  the  testimony 
of  the  teacher  had  "  no  unusual  ability."  It  was  ascertained 


14        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

from  the  parents  that  this  boy,  at  an  age  when  most  chil- 
dren are  reading  fairy  stories,  had  a  passion  for  standard 
medical  literature  and  textbooks  in  physical  science.  Yet, 
after  more  than  a  year  of  daily  contact  with  this  young 
genius  (who  is  a  relative  of  Meyerbeer,  the  composer),  the 
teacher  had  discovered  no  symptoms  of  unusual  ability.1 

Teachers  should  be  better  trained  in  detecting  the  signs 
of  superior  ability.  Every  child  who  consistently  gets  high 
marks  in  his  school  work  with  apparent  ease  should  be  given 
a  mental  examination,  and  if  his  intelligence  level  war- 
rants it  he  should  either  be  given  extra  promotions,  or 
placed  in  a  special  class  for  superior  children  where  faster 
progress  can  be  made.  The  latter  is  the  better  plan,  because 
it  obviates  the  necessity  of  skipping  grades;  it  permits 
rapid  but  continuous  progress. 

The  usual  reluctance  of  teachers  to  give  extra  promo- 
tions probably  rests  upon  three  factors:  (1)  mere  inertia; 
(2)  a  natural  unwillingness  to  part  with  exceptionally  satis- 
factory pupils;  and  (3)  the  traditional  belief  that  preco- 
cious children  should  be  held  back  for  fear  of  dire  physical 
or  mental  consequences. 

In  order  to  throw  light  on  the  question  whether  excep- 
tionally bright  children  are  specially  likely  to  be  one-sided, 
nervous,  delicate,  morally  abnormal,  socially  unadaptable, 
or  otherwise  peculiar,  the  writer  has  secured  rather  ex- 
tensive information  regarding  31  children  whose  mental 
age  was  found  by  intelligence  tests  to  be  25  per  cent  above 
the  actual  age.  This  degree  of  intelligence  is  possessed  by 
about  2  children  out  of  100,  and  is  nearly  as  far  above 
average  intelligence  as  high-grade  feeble-mindedness  is 
below.  The  supplementary  information,  which  was  fur- 
nished in  most  cases  by  the  teachers,  may  be  summarized 
as  follows :  — 

1  See  p.  26  /.  for  further  illustrations  of  this  kind. 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  15 

1.  Ability  special  or  general.  In  the  case  of  20  out  of  31  the  abil- 
ity is  decidedly  general,  and  with  2  it  is  mainly  general.  The 
talents  of  5  are  described  as  more  or  less  special,  but  only  in 
one  case  is  it  remarkably  so.     Doubtful  4. 

2.  Health.   15  are  said  to  be  perfectly  healthy;  13  have  one  or 
more  physical  defects;  4  of  the  13  are  described  as  delicate; 
4  have  adenoids;  4  have  eye-defects;  1  lisps;  and  1  stutters. 
These  figures  are  about  the  same  as  one  finds  in  any  group 
of  ordinary  children. 

3.  Studiousness.  "Extremely  studious,"  15;  "usually  studious" 
or  "fairly  studious,"   11;  "not  particularly  studious,"  5; 
"lazy,"0. 

4.  Moral  traits.  Favorable  traits  only,  19;  one  or  more  unfavor- 
able traits,  8;    no  answer,  4.     The  eight  with  unfavor- 
able moral  traits  are  described  as  follows:  2  are  "very  self- 
willed";  1  "needs  close  watching";  1  is  "cruel  to  animals"; 
1  is  "untruthful";  1  is  "unreliable";  1  is  "a  bluffer";  1  is 
"sexually  abnormal,"  "perverted,"  and  "vicious." 

It  will  be  noted  that  with  the  exception  of  the  last  child, 
the  moral  irregularities  mentioned  can  hardly  be  regarded, 
from  the  psychological  point  of  view,  as  essentially  abnormal. 
It  is  perhaps  a  good  rather  than  a  bad  sign  for  a  child  to  be 
self-willed;  most  children  "need  close  watching";  and  a 
certain  amount  of  untruthfulness  in  children  is  the  rule  and 
not  the  exception. 

5.  Social  adaptability.    Socially  adaptable,  25;  not  adaptable, 
2;  doubtful,  4. 

6.  Attitude  of  other  children.    "Favorable,"  "friendly,"  "liked 
by  everybody,"  "much  admired,"  "popular,"  etc.,  26;  "not 
liked,"  1;  "inspires  repugnance,"  1;  no  answer,  1. 

7.  7*  child  a  leader?  "Yes,"  14;  "no,"  or  "not  particularly,"  12; 
doubtful,  5. 

8.  Is  play  life  normal?  "Yes,"  26;  "no,"  1;  "hardly,"  1;  doubt- 
ful, 8. 

9.  /*  child  spoiled  or  vain?  "No,"  22;  "yes,"  5;  "somewhat,"  2; 
no  answer,  2. 

According  to  the  above  data,  exceptionally  intelligent 
children  are  fully  as  likely  to  be  healthy  as  ordinary  chil- 
dren; their  ability  is  far  more  often  general  than  special, 


16        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

they  are  studious  above  the  average,  really  serious  faults 
are  not  common  among  them,  they  are  nearly  always  so- 
cially adaptable,  are  sought  after  as  playmates  and  com- 
panions, their  play  life  is  usually  normal,  they  are  leaders 
far  oftener  than  other  children,  and  notwithstanding  their 
many  really  superior  qualities  they  are  seldom  vain  or 
spoiled. 

It  would  be  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  such  children  if 
their  superior  ability  were  more  promptly  and  fully  recog- 
nized, and  if  (under  proper  medical  supervision,  of  course) 
they  were  promoted  as  rapidly  as  their  mental  develop- 
ment would  warrant.  Unless  they  are  given  the  grade  of 
work  which  calls  forth  their  best  efforts,  they  run  the  risk 
of  falling  into  lifelong  habits  of  submaximum  efficiency. 
The  danger  in  the  case  of  such  children  is  not  over-pressure, 
but  under-pressure. 

Intelligence  tests  as  a  basis  for  grading.  Not  only  in  the 
case  of  retarded  or  exceptionally  bright  children,  but  with 
many  others  also,  intelligence  tests  can  aid  in  correctly 
placing  the  child  hi  school. 

The  pupil  who  enters  one  school  system  from  another  is 
a  case  in  point.  Such  a  pupil  nearly  always  suffers  a  loss 
of  time.  The  indefensible  custom  is  to  grade  the  newcomer 
down  a  little,  because,  forsooth,  the  textbooks  he  has 
studied  may  have  differed  somewhat  from  those  he  is 
about  to  take  up,  or  because  the  school  system  from  which 
he  comes  may  be  looked  upon  as  inferior.  Teachers  are  too 
often  suspicious  of  all  other  educational  methods  besides 
their  own.  The  present  treatment  accorded  such  children, 
which  so  often  does  them  injustice  and  injury,  should  be 
replaced  by  an  intelligence  test.  The  hour  of  time  required 
for  the  test  is  a  small  matter  in  comparison  with  the  loss 
of  a  school  term  by  the  pupils. 

Indeed,  it  would  be  desirable  to  make  all  promotions  on 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  17 

the  basis  chiefly  of  intellectual  ability.  Hitherto  the  school 
has  had  to  rely  on  tests  of  information  because  reliable  tests 
of  intelligence  have  not  until  recently  been  available.  As 
trained  Binet  examiners  become  more  plentiful,  the  infor- 
mation standard  will  have  to  give  way  to  the  criterion  which 
asks  merely  that  the  child  shall  be  able  to  do  the  work  of 
the  next  higher  grade.  The  brief  intelligence  test  is  not 
only  more  enlightening  than  the  examination;  it  is  also 
more  hygienic.  The  school  examination  is  often  for  the 
child  a  source  of  worry  and  anxiety;  the  mental  test  is  an 
interesting  and  pleasant  experience. 

Intelligence  tests  for  vocational  fitness.  The  time  is 
probably  not  far  distant  when  intelligence  tests  will  be- 
come a  recognized  and  widely  used  instrument  for  deter- 
mining vocational  fitness.  Of  course,  it  is  not  claimed  that 
tests  are  available  which  will  tell  us  unerringly  exactly 
what  one  of  a  thousand  or  more  occupations  a  given  indi- 
vidual is  best  fitted  to  pursue.  But  when  thousands  of 
children  who  have  been  tested  by  the  Binet  scale  have  been 
followed  out  into  the  industrial  world,  and  their  success  in 
various  occupations  noted,  we  shall  know  fairly  definitely 
the  vocational  significance  of  any  given  degree  of  mental 
inferiority  or  superiority.  Researches  of  this  kind  will 
ultimately  determine  the  minimum  "  intelligence  quotient  " 
necessary  for  success  in  each  leading  occupation. 

Industrial  concerns  doubtless  suffer  enormous  losses  from 
the  employment  of  persons  whose  mental  ability  is  not 
equal  to  the  tasks  they  are  expected  to  perform.  The  pres- 
ent methods  of  trying  out  new  employees,  transferring  them 
to  simpler  and  simpler  jobs  as  their  inefficiency  becomes 
apparent,  is  wasteful  and  to  a  great  extent  unnecessary. 
A  cheaper  and  more  satisfactory  method  would  be  to  em- 
ploy a  psychologist  to  examine  applicants  for  positions  and 
to  weed  out  the  unfit.  Any  business  employing  as  many 


18        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

as  five  hundred  or  a  thousand  workers,  as,  for  example,  a 
large  department  store,  could  save  in  this  way  several 
times  the  salary  of  a  well-trained  psychologist. 

That  the  industrially  inefficient  are  often  of  subnormal 
intelligence  has  already  been  demonstrated  in  a  number  of 
psychological  investigations.  Of  150  "hoboes "  tested  under 
the  direction  of  the  writer  by  Mr.  Knollin,  at  least  20  per 
cent  belonged  to  the  moron  grade  of  mental  deficiency, 
and  almost  as  many  more  were  border-line  cases.  To  be 
sure,  a  large  proportion  were  found  perfectly  normal, 
and  a  few  even  decidedly  superior  in  mental  ability,  but 
the  ratio  of  mental  deficiency  was  about  fifteen  times  as 
high  as  that  holding  for  the  general  population.  Several 
had  as  low  as  9-  or  10-year  intelligence,  and  one  had  a 
mental  level  of  7  years.  The  industrial  history  of  such 
subjects,  as  given  by  themselves,  was  always  about  what 
the  mental  level  would  lead  us  to  expect  —  unskilled  work, 
lack  of  interest  in  accomplishment,  frequent  discharge  from 
jobs,  discouragement,  and  finally  the  "  road." 

The  above  findings  have  been  fully  paralleled  by  Mr. 
Glenn  Johnson  and  Professor  Eleanor  Rowland,  of  Reed 
College,  who  tested  108  unemployed  charity  cases  in  Port- 
land, Oregon.  Both  of  these  investigators  made  use  of  the 
Stanford  revision  of  the  Binet  scale,  which  is  especially 
serviceable  in  distinguishing  the  upper-grade  defectives 
from  normals. 

It  hardly  needs  to  be  emphasized  that  when  charity 
organizations  help  the  feeble-minded  to  float  along  in  the 
social  and  industrial  world,  and  to  produce  and  rear 
children  after  their  kind,  a  doubtful  service  is  rendered. 
A  little  psychological  research  would  aid  the  united  chari- 
ties of  any  city  to  direct  their  expenditures  into  more  profit- 
able channels  than  would  otherwise  be  possible. 

Other  uses  of  intelligence  tests.  Another  important  use 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  19 

of  intelligence  tests  is  in  the  study  of  the  factors  which 
influence  mental  development.  It  is  desirable  that  we  should 
be  able  to  guard  the  child  against  influences  which  affect 
mental  development  unfavorably;  but  as  long  as  these  in- 
fluences have  not  been  sifted,  weighed,  and  measured,  we 
have  nothing  but  conjecture  on  which  to  base  our  efforts 
in  this  direction. 

When  we  search  the  literature  of  child  hygiene  for 
reliable  evidence  as  to  the  injurious  effects  upon  mental 
ability  of  malnutrition,  decayed  teeth,  obstructed  breath- 
ing, reduced  sleep,  bad  ventilation,  insufficient  exercise, 
etc.,  we  are  met  by  endless  assertion  painfully  unsup- 
ported by  demonstrated  fact.  We  have,  indeed,  very  little 
exact  knowledge  regarding  the  mental  effects  of  any  of 
the  factors  just  mentioned.  When  standardized  mental 
tests  have  come  into  more  general  use,  such  influences 
will  be  easy  to  detect  wherever  they  are  really  present. 

Again,  the  most  important  question  of  heredity  is  that 
regarding  the  inheritance  of  intelligence;  but  this  is  a  prob- 
lem which  cannot  be  attacked  at  all  without  some  accurate 
means  of  identifying  the  thing  which  is  the  object  of  study. 
Without  the  use  of  scales  for  measuring  intelligence  we 
can  give  no  better  answer  as  to  the  essential  difference 
between  a  genius  and  a  fool  than  is  to  be  found  in  legend 
and  fiction. 

Applying  this  to  school  children,  it  means  that  without 
such  tests  we  cannot  know  to  what  extent  a  child's  mental 
performances  are  determined  by  environment  and  to  what 
extent  by  heredity.  Is  the  place  of  the  so-called  lower  classes 
in  the  social  and  industrial  scale  the  result  of  their  inferior 
native  endowment,  or  is  their  apparent  inferiority  merely 
a  result  of  their  inferior  home  and  school  training?  Is 
genius  more  common  among  children  of  the  educated 
classes  than  among  the  children  of  the  ignorant  and  poor? 


20        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Are  the  inferior  races  really  inferior,  or  are  they  merely 
unfortunate  in  their  lack  of  opportunity  to  learn? 

Only  intelligence  tests  can  answer  these  questions  and 
grade  the  raw  material  with  which  education  works. 
Without  them  we  can  never  distinguish  the  results  of  our 
educational  efforts  with  a  given  child  from  the  influence  of 
the  child's  original  endowment.  Such  tests  would  have 
told  us,  for  example,  whether  the  much-discussed  "  wonder 
children,"  such  as  the  Sidis  and  Wiener  boys  and  the 
Stoner  girl,  owe  their  precocious  intellectual  prowess  to 
superior  training  (as  their  parents  believe)  or  to  superior 
native  ability.  The  supposed  effects  upon  mental  develop- 
ment of  new  methods  of  mind  training,  which  are  exploited 
so  confidently  from  time  to  time  (e.g.,  the  Montessori 
method  and  the  various  systems  of  sensory  and  motor 
training  for  the  feeble-minded),  will  have  to  be  checked  up 
by  the  same  kind  of  scientific  measurement. 

In  all  these  fields  intelligence  tests  are  certain  to  play  an 
ever-increasing  role.  With  the  exception  of  moral  charac- 
ter, there  is  nothing  as  significant  for  a  child's  future  as  his 
grade  of  intelligence.  Even  health  itself  is  likely  to  have 
less  influence  in  determining  success  in  life.  Although 
strength  and  swiftness  have  always  had  great  survival  value 
among  the  lower  animals,  these  characteristics  have  long 
since  lost  their  supremacy  in  man's  struggle  for  existence. 
For  us  the  rule  of  brawn  has  been  broken,  and  intelli- 
gence has  become  the  decisive  factor  in  success.  Schools, 
railroads,  factories,  and  the  largest  commercial  concerns 
may  be  successfully  managed  by  persons  who  are  physically 
weak  or  even  sickly.  One  who  has  intelligence  constantly 
measures  opportunities  against  his  own  strength  or  weak- 
ness and  adjusts  himself  to  conditions  by  following  those 
leads  which  promise  most  toward  the  realization  of  his 
individual  possibilities. 


USES  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  21 

All  classes  of  intellects,  the  weakest  as  well  as  the  strong- 
est, will  profit  by  the  application  of  their  talents  to  tasks 
which  are  consonant  with  their  ability.  When  we  have 
learned  the  lessons  which  intelligence  tests  have  to  teach, 
we  shall  no  longer  blame  mentally  defective  workmen  for 
their  industrial  inefficiency,  punish  weak-minded  children 
because  of  their  inability  to  learn,  or  imprison  and  hang 
mentally  defective  criminals  because  they  lacked  the  in- 
telligence to  appreciate  the  ordinary  codes  of  social  conduct. 


CHAPTER  II 

SOURCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  INTELLIGENCE 

Are  intelligence  tests  superfluous?  Binet  tells  us  that 
he  often  encountered  the  criticism  that  intelligence  tests 
are  superfluous,  and  that  in  going  to  so  much  trouble  to 
devise  his  measuring  scale  he  was  forcing  an  open  door. 
Those  who  made  this  criticism  believed  that  the  observant 
teacher  or  parent  is  able  to  make  an  offhand  estimate  of  a 
child's  intelligence  which  is  accurate  enough.  "  It  is  a  stupid 
teacher,"  said  one,  "  who  needs  a  psychologist  to  tell  her 
which  pupils  are  not  intelligent."  Every  one  who  uses  in- 
telligence tests  meets  this  attitude  from  time  to  time. 

This  should  not  be  surprising  or  discouraging.  It  is 
only  natural  that  those  who  are  unfamiliar  with  the  methods 
of  psychology  should  occasionally  question  their  validity 
or  worth,  just  as  there  are  many  excellent  people  who  do 
not  "  believe  in  "  vaccination  against  typhoid  and  small- 
pox, operations  for  appendicitis,  etc. 

There  is  an  additional  reason  why  the  applications  of 
psychology  have  to  overcome  a  good  deal  of  conservatism 
and  skepticism;  namely,  the  fact  that  every  one,  whether 
psychologically  trained  or  not,  acquires  in  the  ordinary 
experiences  of  life  a  certain  degree  of  expertness  in  the 
observation  and  interpretation  of  mental  traits.  The 
possession  of  this  little  fund  of  practical  working  knowl- 
edge makes  most  people  slow  to  admit  any  one's  claim  to 
greater  expertness.  When  the  astronomer  tells  us  the  dis- 
tance to  Jupiter,  we  accept  his  statement,  because  we 


SOURCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  23 

recognize  that  our  ordinary  experience  affords  no  basis  for 
judgment  about  such  matters.  But  every  one  acquires  more 
or  less  facility  in  distinguishing  the  coarser  differences 
among  people  in  intelligence,  and  this  half-knowledge 
naturally  generates  a  certain  amount  of  resistance  to  the 
more  refined  method  of  tests. 

It  should  be  evident,  however,  that  we  need  more  than 
the  ability  merely  to  distinguish  a  genius  from  a  simple- 
ton, just  as  a  physician  needs  something  more  than  the 
ability  to  distinguish  an  athlete  from  a  man  dying  of  con- 
sumption. It. is  necessary  to  have  a  definite  and  accurate 
diagnosis,  one  which  will  differentiate  more  finely  the  many 
degrees  and  qualities  of  intelligence.  Just  as  in  the  case  of 
physical  illness,  we  need  to  know  not  merely  that  the 
patient  is  sick,  but  also  why  he  is  sick,  what  organs  are  in- 
volved, what  course  the  illness  will  run,  and  what  physical 
work  the  patient  can  safely  undertake,  so  in  the  case  of  a 
retarded  child,  we  need  to  know  the  exact  degree  of  intel- 
lectual deficiency,  what  mental  functions  are  chiefly  con- 
cerned in  the  defect,  whether  the  deficiency  is  due  to  in- 
nate endowment,  to  physical  illness,  or  to  faults  of  educa- 
tion, and  what  lines  of  mental  activity  the  child  will  be  able 
to  pursue  with  reasonable  hope  of  success.  In  the  diagnosis 
of  a  case  of  malnutrition,  the  up-to-date  physician  does  not 
depend  upon  general  symptoms,  but  instead  makes  a  blood 
test  to  determine  the  exact  number  of  red  corpuscles  per 
cubic  millimeter  of  blood  and  the  exact  percentage  of 
haemoglobin.  He  has  learned  that  external  appearances 
are  often  misleading.  Similarly,  every  psychologist  who  is 
experienced  in  the  mental  examination  of  school  children 
knows  that  his  own  or  the  teacher's  estimate  of  a  child's 
intelligence  is  subject  to  grave  and  frequent  error. 

The  necessity  of  standards.  In  the  first  place,  in  order 
to  judge  an  individual's  intelligence  it  is  necessary  to  have 


24        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

in  mind  some  standard  as  to  what  constitutes  normal  in- 
telligence. This  the  ordinary  parent  or  teacher  does  not 
have.  In  the  case  of  school  children,  for  example,  each  pupil 
is  judged  with  reference  to  the  average  intelligence  of  the 
class.  But  the  teacher  has  no  means  of  knowing  whether  the 
average  for  her  class  is  above,  equal  to,  or  below  that  for 
children  in  general.  Her  standard  may  be  too  high,  too  low, 
vague,  mechanical,  or  fragmentary.  The  same,  of  course, 
holds  in  the  case  of  parents  or  any  one  else  attempting  to 
estimate  intelligence  on  the  basis  of  common  observation. 

The  intelligence  of  retarded  children  usually  over- 
estimated. One  of  the  most  common  errors  made  by  the 
teacher  is  to  overestimate  the  intelligence  of  the  over-age 
pupil.  This  is  because  she  fails  to  take  account  of  age  dif- 
ferences and  estimates  intelligence  on  the  basis  of  the 
child's  school  performance  in  the  grade  where  he  happens 
to  be  located.  She  tends  to  overlook  the  fact  that  quality 
of  school  work  is  no  index  of  intelligence  unless  age  is  taken 
into  account.  The  question  should  be,  not,  "  Is  this  child 
doing  his  school  work  well?  "  but  rather,  "  In  what  school 
grade  should  a  child  of  this  age  be  able  to  do  satisfactory 
work?  "  A  high-grade  imbecile  may  do  average  work  in 
the  first  grade,  and  a  high-grade  moron  average  work  in 
the  third  or  fourth  grade,  provided  only  they  are  sufficiently 
over-age  for  the  grade  in  question. 

Our  experience  in  testing  children  for  segregation  in 
special  classes  has  time  and  again  brought  this  fallacy  of 
teachers  to  our  attention.  We  have  often  found  one  or  more 
feeble-minded  children  in  a  class  after  the  teacher  had 
confidently  asserted  that  there  was  not  a  single  exception- 
ally dull  child  present.  In  every  case  where  there  has  been 
opportunity  to  follow  the  later  school  progress  of  such  a 
child  the  validity  of  the  intelligence  test  has  been  fully 
confirmed. 


SOURCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  25 

The  following  are  typical  examples  of  the  neglect  of  teach- 
ers to  take  the  age  factor  into  account  when  estimating 
the  intelligence  of  the  over-age  child:  — 

A.  R.  Girl,  age  11;  in  low  second  grade.  She  was  able  to  do  the 
work  of  this  grade,  not  well,  but  passably.  The  teacher's  judgment 
as  to  this  child's  intelligence  was  "dull  but  not  defective."  What 
the  teacher  overlooked  was  the  fact  that  she  had  judged  the  child 
by  a  7-year  standard,  and  that,  instead  of  only  being  able  to  do  the 
work  of  the  second  grade  indifferently,  a  child  of  this  age  should 
have  been  equal  to  the  work  of  the  fifth  grade.  In  reality,  A.  R.  is 
definitely  feeble-minded.  Although  she  is  from  a  home  of  average 
culture,  is  11  years  old,  and  has  attended  school  five  years,  she 
has  barely  the  intelligence  of  the  average  child  of  six  years. 

D.  C.  Boy,  age  17;  in  fifth  grade.  His  teacher  knew  that  he  was 
dull,  but  had  not  thought  of  him  as  belonging  to  the  class  of  feeble- 
minded. She  had  judged  this  boy  by  the  11-year  standard  and 
had  perhaps  been  further  misled  by  his  normal  appearance  and 
exceptionally  satisfactory  behavior.  The  Binet  test  quickly 
showed  that  he  had  a  mental  level  of  approximately  9  years.  There 
is  little  probability  that  his  comprehension  will  ever  surpass  that 
of  the  average  10-year-old. 

R.  A.  Boy,  age  17;  menial  age  11;  sixth  grade;  school  work 
"nearly  average";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average."  Test 
plainly  shows  this  child  to  be  a  high-grade  moron,  or  border-liner 
at  best.  Had  attended  school  regularly  11  years  and  had  made  6 
grades.  Teacher  had  compared  child  with  his  12-year-old  class- 
mates. 

H.  A.  Boy,  age  14;  mental  age  9-6;  low  fourth  grade;  school  work 
"inferior";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average."  The  teacher 
blamed  the  inferior  quality  of  school  work  to  "bad  home  environ- 
ment." As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  boy's  father  is  feeble-minded  and 
the  normality  of  the  mother  is  questionable.  An  older  brother  is 
in  a  reform  school.  We  are  perfectly  safe  in  predicting  that  this 
boy  will  not  complete  the  eighth  grade  even  if  he  attends  school 
till  he  is  21  years  of  age. 

F.  I.  Boy,  age  12-11;  mental  age  9-4;  third  grade;  school  work 
"average";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average";  social  en- 
vironment "average";  health  good  and  attendance  regular.  Intelli- 
gence and  school  success  are  what  we  should  expect  of  an  average 
9-year-old. 


20        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

D.  A.  Boy,  age  IS;  mental  age  9-2;  third  grade;  school  work  "in- 
ferior"; teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average."  Teacher  im- 
putes inferior  school  work  to  "absence  from  school  and  lack  of 
interest  in  books";  we  have  yet  to  find  a  child  with  a  mental  age 
25  per  cent  below  chronological  age  who  was  particularly  inter- 
ested in  books  or  enthusiastic  about  school. 

C.  U.  Girl,  age  10;  mental  age  7-8;  second  grade;  school  work 
"average";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average."  Teacher 
blames  adenoids  and  bad  teeth  for  retardation.  No  doubt  of 
child's  mental  deficiency. 

P.  7.  Girl,  age  8-10;  mental  age  6-7;  has  been  in  first  grade  2% 
years;  school  work  "average";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "aver- 
age." The  mother  and  one  brother  of  this  girl  are  both  feeble- 
minded. 

H .  0.  Girl,  age  7-10;  mental  age  5-2;  first  grade  for  2  years; 
school  work  "inferior";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average." 
The  teacher  nevertheless  adds,  "This  child  is  not  normal,  but  her 
ability  to  respond  to  drill  shows  that  she  has  intelligence."  It  is 
of  course  true  that  even  feeble-minded  children  of  5-year  intelli- 
gence are  able  to  profit  a  little  from  drill.  Their  weakness  comes  to 
light  in  their  inability  to  perform  higher  types  of  mental  activity. 

The  intelligence  of  superior  children  usually  underesti- 
mated. We  have  already  mentioned  the  frequent  failure  of 
teachers  and  parents  to  recognize  superior  ability.1  The  fal- 
lacy here  is  again  largely  due  to  the  neglect  of  the  age  factor, 
but  the  resulting  error  is  in  the  opposite  direction  from  that 
set  forth  above.  The  superior  child  is  likely  to  be  a  year  or 
two  younger  than  the  average  child  of  his  grade,  and  is  ac- 
cordingly judged  by  a  standard  which  is  too  high.  The 
following  are  illustrations :  — 

M.  L.  Girl,  age  11-2;  mental  age  "average  adult"  (16);  sixth 
grade;  school  work  "superior";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence 
"average."  Teacher  credits  superior  school  work  to  "unusual 
home  advantages."  Father  a  college  professor.  The  teacher  con- 
siders the  child  accelerated  in  school.  In  reality  she  ought  to  be  in 
the  second  year  of  high  school  instead  of  in  the  sixth  grade. 

1  See  p.  13  ff. 


SOURCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  27 

JI.  A.  Boy,  age  11;  mental  age  14;  sixth  grade;  school  work  "aver- 
age"; teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average."  According  to  the 
supplementary  information  the  boy  is  "wonderfully  attentive," 
"studious,"  and  possessed  of  "all-round  ability."  The  estimate  of 
"average  intelligence"  was  probably  the  result  of  comparing  him 
with  classmates  who  averaged  about  a  year  older. 

K.  R.  Girl,  age  6-1;  mental  age  8-5;  second  grade;  school  work 
"average";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "superior";  social  en- 
vironment "  average."  Is  it  not  evident  that  a  child  from  ordinary 
social  environment,  who  does  work  of  average  quality  in  the  second 
grade  when  barely  6  years  of  age,  should  be  judged  "very  superior" 
rather  than  merely  "superior"  in  intelligence?  The  intelligence 
quotient  of  this  girl  is  140,  which  is  not  reached  by  more  than  one 
child  in  two  hundred. 

S.  A.  Boy,  age  8-10;  mental  age  10-9;  fourth  grade;  school  work 
"average";  teacher's  estimate  of  intelligence  "average"  Teacher 
attributed  school  acceleration  to  "studiousness"  and  "delight  in 
school  work."  It  would  be  more  reasonable  to  infer  that  these 
traits  are  indications  of  unusually  superior  intelligence. 

Other  fallacies  in  the  estimation  of  intelligence.  An- 
other source  of  error  in  the  teacher's  judgment  comes  from 
the  difficulty  in  distinguishing  genuine  dullness  from  the 
mental  condition  which  results  sometimes  from  unfavorable 
social  environment  or  lack  of  training. 

V.  P.  Boy,  age  7.  Had  attended  school  one  year  and  had 
profited  very  little  from  the  instruction.  He  had  learned  to  read 
very  little,  spoke  chiefly  in  monosyllables,  and  seemed  "  queer."  The 
teacher  suspected  his  intelligence  and  asked  for  a  mental  examina- 
tion. The  Binet  test  showed  that  except  for  vocabulary,  which 
was  unusually  low,  there  was  practically  no  mental  retardation.  In- 
quiry disclosed  the  fact  that  the  boy's  parents  were  uneducated 
deaf-mutes,  and  that  the  boy  had  associated  little  with  other 
children.  Four  years  later  this  boy  was  doing  fairly  well  in  school, 
though  a  year  retarded  because  of  his  unfavorable  home  environ- 
ment. 

X.  Y.  Boy,  age  10.  Son  of  a  successful  business  man,  he  was 
barely  able  to  read  in  the  second  reader.  The  Binet  test  revealed 
an  intelligence  level  which  was  absolutely  normal.  The  boy  was 


28        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

removed  to  a  special  class  where  he  could  receive  individual  at- 
tention, and  two  years  later  was  found  doing  good  work  in  a  regu- 
lar class  of  the  fifth  grade.  His  bad  beginning  seemed  to  have  been 
due  to  an  unfavorable  attitude  toward  school  work,  due  in  turn  to 
lack  of  discipline  in  the  home,  and  to  the  fact  that  because  of  the 
father's  frequent  change  of  business  headquarters  the  boy  had 
never  attended  one  school  longer  than  three  months. 

Another  source  of  error  in  judging  intelligence  from  com- 
mon observation  is  the  tendency  to  overestimate  the  in- 
telligence of  the  sprightly,  talkative,  sanguine  child,  and  to 
underestimate  the  intelligence  of  the  child  who  is  less 
emotional,  reacts  slowly,  and  talks  little.  One  occasion- 
ally finds  a  feeble-minded  adult,  perhaps  of  only  9-  or  10- 
year  intelligence,  whose  verbal  fluency,  mental  liveliness, 
and  self-confidence  would  mislead  the  offhand  judgment  of 
even  the  psychologist.  One  individual  of  this  type,  a  bor- 
der-line case  at  best,  was  accustomed  to  harangue  street 
audiences  and  had  served  as  "  major  "  in  "  Kelly's  Army," 
a  horde  of  several  hundred  unemployed  men  who  a  few  years 
ago  organized  and  started  to  march  from  San  Francisco  to 
Washington. 

Binet's  questionnaire  on  teachers'  methods  of  judging 
intelligence.1  Aroused  by  the  skepticism  so  often  shown 
toward  his  test  method,  Binet  decided  to  make  a  little 
study  of  the  methods  by  which  teachers  are  accustomed  to 
arrive  at  a  judgment  as  to  a  child's  intelligence.  Accord- 
ingly, through  the  cooperation  of  the  director  of  elementary 
education  in  Paris,  he  secured  answers  from  a  number  of 
teachers  to  the  following  questions:  — 

1.  By  what  means  do  you  judge  the  intelligence  of  your  pupils? 

2.  How  often  have  you  been  deceived  in  your  judgments? 

About  40  replies  were  received.  Most  of  the  answers  to 
the  first  question  were  vague,  one-sided,  "  verbal,"  or 

1  See  p.  169  ff.  of  reference  2,  at  end  of  this  book 


SOURCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  29 

bookish.  Only  a  few  showed  much  psychological  dis- 
crimination as  to  what  intelligence  is  and  what  its  symp- 
toms are.  There  was  a  very  general  tendency  to  judge 
intelligence  by  success  in  one  or  more  of  the  school  studies. 
Some  thought  that  ability  to  master  arithmetic  was  a  sure 
criterion.  Others  were  influenced  almost  entirely  by  the 
pupil's  ability  to  read.  One  teacher  said  that  the  child  who 
can  "  read  so  expressively  as  to  make  you  feel  the  punc- 
tuation "  is  certainly  intelligent,  an  observation  which 
is  rather  good,  as  far  as  it  goes.  A  few  judged  intelligence 
by  the  pupil's  knowledge  of  such  subjects  as  history  and 
geography,  which,  as  Binet  points  out,  is  to  confound  in- 
telligence with  the  ability  to  memorize.  "  Memory,"  says 
Binet,  is  a  "  great  simulator  of  intelligence."  It  is  a  wise 
teacher  who  is  not  deceived  by  it.  Only  a  small  minority 
mentioned  resourcefulness  in  play,  capacity  to  adjust  to 
practical  situations,  or  any  other  out-of-school  criteria. 

Some  suggested  asking  the  pupil  such  questions  as  the 
following:  — 

"Why  do  you  love  your  parents?"  "If  it  takes  three  persons 
seven  hours  to  do  a  piece  of  work,  would  it  take  seven  persons  any 
longer?"  "Which  would  you  rather  have,  a  fourth  of  a  pie,  or  a 
half  of  a  half?"  "Which  is  heavier,  a  pound  of  feathers  or  a  pound 
of  lead?"  "If  you  had  twenty  cents  what  would  you  do  with  it?" 

A  great  many  based  their  judgment  mainly  on  the  gen- 
eral appearance  of  the  face  and  eyes.  An  "  active  "  or 
"  passive  "  expression  of  the  eyes  was  looked  upon  as  es- 
pecially significant.  One  teacher  thought  that  a  mere 
"  glance  of  the  eye  "  was  sufficient  to  display  the  grade  of 
intelligence.  If  the  eyes  are  penetrating,  reflective,  or  show 
curiosity,  the  child  must  be  intelligent;  if  they  are  heavy 
and  expressionless,  he  must  be  dull.  The  mobility  of  coun- 
tenance came  in  for  frequent  mention,  also  the  shape  of 
the  head. 


30        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

No  one  will  deny  that  intelligence  displays  itself  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  in  the  features;  but  how,  asks  Binet, 
are  we  going  to  standardize  a  "  glance  of  the  eye  "  or  an 
"  expression  of  curiosity  "  so  that  it  will  serve  as  an  exact 
measure  of  intelligence? 

The  fact  is,  the  more  one  sees  of  feeble-minded  children, 
the  less  reliance  one  comes  to  place  upon  facial  expression 
as  a  sign  of  intelligence.  Some  children  who  are  only  slightly 
backward  have  the  general  appearance  of  low-grade  im- 
beciles. On  the  other  hand,  not  a  few  who  are  distinctly 
feeble-minded  are  pretty  and  attractive.  With  many  such 
children  a  ready  smile  takes  the  place  of  comprehension. 
If  the  smile  is  rather  sweet  and  sympathetic,  as  is  often 
the  case,  the  observer  is  almost  sure  to  be  deceived. 

As  regards  the  shape  of  the  head,  peculiar  conformation 
of  the  ears,  and  other  "  stigmata,"  science  long  ago  demon- 
strated that  these  are  ordinarily  of  little  or  no  significance. 

In  reply  to  the  second  question,  some  teachers  stated 
that  they  never  made  a  mistake,  while  others  admitted 
failure  in  one  case  out  of  three.  Still  others  said,  "  Once 
in  ten  years,"  "  once  in  twenty  years,"  "  once  in  a  thousand 
times,"  etc. 

As  Binet  remarks,  the  answers  to  this  question  are  not 
very  enlightening.  In  the  first  place,  the  teacher  as  a  rule 
loses  sight  of  the  pupil  when  he  has  passed  from  her  care, 
and  seldom  has  opportunity  of  finding  out  whether  his 
later  success  belies  her  judgment  or  confirms  it.  Errors 
go  undiscovered  for  the  simple  reason  that  there  is  no  op- 
portunity to  check  them  up.  In  the  second  place,  her  esti- 
mate is  so  rough  that  an  error  must  be  very  great  in  order 
to  have  any  meaning.  If  I  say  that  a  man  is  six  feet  and 
two  inches  tall,  it  is  easy  enough  to  apply  a  measuring 
stick  and  prove  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  my  as- 
sertion. But  if  I  say  simply  that  the  man  is  "  rather  tall," 


SOURCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  31 

or  "  very  tall,"  the  error  must  be  very  extreme  before  we 
can  expose  it,  particularly  since  the  estimate  can  itself  be 
checked  up  only  by  observation  and  not  by  controlled  ex- 
periment. 

The  teachers'  answers  seem  to  justify  three  conclusions: — 

1.  Teachers  do  not  have  a  very  definite  idea  of  what 
constitutes  intelligence.   They  tend  to  confuse  it  variously 
with  capacity  for  memorizing,  facility  in  reading,  ability 
to  master  arithmetic,  etc.     On  the  whole,  their  standard 
is  too  academic.  They  fail  to  appreciate  the  one-sidedness 
of  the  school's  demands  upon  intelligence. 

In  a  quaintly  humorous  passage  discussing  this  tendency, 
Binet  characterizes  the  child  in  a  class  as  denature,  a 
French  word  which  we  may  translate  (though  rather  too 
literally)  as  "  denatured."  Too  often  this  "  denatured  " 
child  of  the  classroom  is  the  only  child  the  teacher  knows. 

2.  In  judging  intelligence  teachers  are  too  easily  de- 
ceived by  a  sprightly  attitude,  a  sympathetic  expression, 
a  glance  of  the  eye,  or  a  chance  "  bump  "  on  the  head. 

3.  Although  a  few  teachers  seem  to  realize  the  many 
possibilities  of  error,  the  majority  show  rather  undue  con- 
fidence in  the  accuracy  of  their  judgment. 

Binet's  experiment  on  how  teachers  test  intelligence.1 
Finally,  Binet  had  three  teachers  come  to  his  laboratory  to 
judge  the  intelligence  of  children  whom  they  had  never 
seen  before.  Each  spent  an  afternoon  in  the  laboratory  and 
examined  five  pupils.  In  each  case  the  teacher  was  left 
free  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  in  her  own  way.  Binet,  who 
remained  in  the  room  and  took  notes,  recounts  with  play- 
ful humor  how  the  teachers  were  unavoidably  compelled 
to  resort  to  the  much-abused  test  method,  although  their 
attempts  at  using  it  were  sometimes,  from  the  psycholo- 
gist's point  of  view,  amusingly  clumsy. 

1  See  p.  182  jf.  of  reference  2  at  end  of  this  book. 


32        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

One  teacher,  for  example,  questioned  the  children  about 
some  canals  and  sluices  which  were  in  the  vicinity,  asking 
what  their  purpose  was  and  how  they  worked.  Another 
showed  the  children  some  pretty  pictures,  which  she  had 
brought  with  her  for  the  purpose,  and  asked  questions  about 
them.  Showing  the  picture  of  a  garret,  she  asked  how  a 
garret  differs  from  an  ordinary  room.  One  teacher  asked 
whether  in  building  a  factory  it  was  best  to  have  the  walls 
thick  or  thin.  As  King  Edward  had  just  died,  another 
teacher  questioned  the  children  about  the  details  of  this 
event,  in  order  to  find  out  whether  they  were  in  the  habit 
of  reading  the  newspapers,  or  understood  the  things  they 
heard  others  read.  Other  questions  related  to  the  names  of 
the  streets  in  the  neighborhood,  the  road  one  should  take 
to  reach  a  certain  point  in  the  vicinity,  etc.  Binet  notes 
that  many  of  the  questions  were  special,  and  were  only 
applicable  with  the  children  of  this  particular  school. 

The  method  of  proposing  the  questions  and  judging  the 
responses  was  also  at  fault.  The  teachers  did  not  adhere 
consistently  to  any  definite  formula  in  giving  a  particular 
test  to  the  different  children.  Instead,  the  questions  were 
materially  altered  from  time  to  time.  One  teacher  scored 
the  identical  response  differently  for  two  children,  giving 
one  child  more  credit  than  the  other  because  she  had  already 
judged  his  intelligence  to  be  superior.  In  several  cases  the 
examination  was  needlessly  delayed  in  order  to  instruct 
the  child  in  what  he  did  not  know. 

The  examination  ended,  quite  properly  for  a  teacher's 
examination,  with  questions  about  history,  literature,  the 
metric  system,  etc.,  and  with  the  recitation  of  a  fable. 

A  comparison  of  the  results  showed  hardly  any  agree- 
ment among  the  estimates  of  the  three  teachers.  When 
questioned  about  the  standard  that  had  been  taken  in  ar- 
riving at  their  conclusions,  one  teacher  said  she  had  taken 


SOURCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  33 

the  answers  of  the  first  pupil  as  a  point  of  departure,  and 
that  she  had  judged  the  other  pupils  by  this  one.  Another 
judged  all  the  children  by  a  child  of  her  acquaintance 
whom  she  knew  to  be  intelligent.  This  was,  of  course,  an 
unsafe  method,  because  no  one  could  say  how  the  child 
taken  as  an  ideal  would  have  responded  to  the  tests  used 
with  the  five  children. 

In  summarizing  the  result  of  his  little  experiment,  Binet 
points  out  that  the  teachers  employed,  as  if  by  instinct,  the 
very  method  which  he  himself  recommends.  In  using  it, 
however,  they  made  numerous  errors.  Their  questions  were 
often  needlessly  long.  Several  were  "  dilemma  questions," 
that  is,  answerable  by  yes  or  no.  In  such  cases  chance  alone 
will  cause  fifty  per  cent  of  the  answers  to  be  correct.  Some 
of  the  questions  were  merely  tests  of  school  knowledge. 
Others  were  entirely  special,  usable  only  with  the  children 
of  this  particular  school  on  this  particular  day.  Not  all  of 
the  questions  were  put  in  the  same  terms,  and  a  given  re- 
sponse did  not  always  receive  the  same  score.  When  the  chil- 
dren responded  incorrectly  or  incompletely,  they  were  often 
given  help,  but  not  always  to  the  same  extent.  In  other 
words,  says  Binet,  it  was  evident  that  "  the  teachers  em- 
ployed very  awkwardly  a  very  excellent  method." 

The  above  remark  is  as  pertinent  as  it  is  expressive. 
As  the  statement  implies,  the  test  method  is  but  a  refine- 
ment and  standardization  of  the  common-sense  approach. 
Binet  remarks  that  most  people  who  inquire  into  his 
method  of  measuring  intelligence  do  so  expecting  to  find 
something  very  surprising  and  mysterious;  and  on  seeing 
how  much  it  resembles  the  methods  which  common  sense 
employs  in  ordinary  life,  they  heave  a  sigh  of  disappoint- 
ment and  say,  "  Is  that  all?  "  Binet  reminds  us  that  the 
difference  between  the  scientific  and  unscientific  way  of 
doing  a  thing  is  not  necessarily  a  difference  in  the  nature 


34        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

of  the  method;  it  is  often  merely  a  difference  in  exactness. 
Science  does  the  thing  better,  because  it  does  it  more 
accurately. 

It  was  of  course  not  the  purpose  of  Binet  to  cast  a  slur 
upon  the  good  sense  and  judgment  of  teachers.  The  teach- 
ers who  took  part  in  the  little  experiment  described  above 
were  Binet's  personal  friends.  The  errors  he  points  out  in 
his  entertaining  and  good-humored  account  of  the  experi- 
ment are  inherent  in  the  situation.  They  are  the  kind  of 
errors  which  any  person,  however  discriminating  and  ob- 
servant, is  likely  to  make  in  estimating  the  intelligence  of  a 
subject  without  the  use  of  standardized  tests. 

It  is  the  writer's  experience  that  the  teacher's  estimate 
of  a  child's  intelligence  is  much  more  reliable  than  that  of 
the  average  parent;  more  accurate  even  than  that  of  the 
physician  who  has  not  had  psychological  training. 

Indeed,  it  is  an  exceptional  school  physician  who  is  able 
to  give  any  very  valuable  assistance  to  teachers  in  the 
classification  of  mentally  exceptional  children  for  special 
pedagogical  treatment. 

This  is  only  to  be  expected,  for  the  physician  has  or- 
dinarily had  much  less  instruction  in  psychology  than  the 
teacher,  and  of  course  infinitely  less  experience  in  judging 
the  mental  performances  of  children.  Even  if  graduated 
from  a  first-rank  medical  school,  the  instruction  he  has 
received  in  the  important  subject  of  mental  deficiency 
has  probably  been  less  adequate  than  that  given  to  the 
students  of  a  standard  normal  school.  As  a  rule,  the  doctor 
has  no  equipment  or  special  fitness  which  gives  him  any 
advantage  over  the  teacher  in  acquiring  facility  in  the  use 
of  intelligence  tests. 

As  for  parents,  it  would  of  course  be  unreasonable  to 
expect  from  them  a  very  accurate  judgment  regarding  the 
mental  peculiarities  of  their  children.  The  difficulty  is 


SOUKCES  OF  ERROR  IN  JUDGING  35 

not  simply  that  which  comes  from  lack  of  special  train- 
ing. The  presence  of  parental  affection  renders  impartial 
judgment  impossible.  Still  more  serious  are  the  effects  of 
habituation  to  the  child's  mental  traits.  As  a  result  of 
such  habituation  the  most  intelligent  parent  tends  to  de- 
velop an  unfortunate  blindness  to  all  sorts  of  abnormal- 
ities which  exist  in  his  own  children. 

The  only  way  of  escape  from  the  fallacies  we  have  men- 
tioned lies  in  the  use  of  some  kind  of  refined  psychological 
procedure.  Binet  testing  is  destined  to  become  universally 
known  and  practiced  in  schools,  prisons,  reformatories, 
charity  stations,  orphan  asylums,  and  even  ordinary  homes, 
for  the  same  reason  that  Babcock  testing  has  become  uni- 
versal in  dairying.  Each  is  indispensable  to  its  purpose. 


CHAPTER   III 

DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD 

Essential  nature  of  the  scale.  The  Binet  scale  is  made  up 
of  an  extended  series  of  tests  in  the  nature  of  "  stunts," 
or  problems,  success  in  which  demands  the  exercise  of  in- 
telligence. As  left  by  Binet,  the  scale  consists  of  54  tests, 
so  graded  in  difficulty  that  the  easiest  lie  well  within  the 
range  of  normal  3-year-old  children,  while  the  hardest  tax 
the  intelligence  of  the  average  adult.  The  problems  are 
designed  primarily  to  test  native  intelligence,  not  school 
knowledge  or  home  training.  They  try  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, "  How  intelligent  is  this  child?  "  How  much  the  child 
has  learned  is  of  significance  only  in  so  far  as  it  throws  light 
on  his  ability  to  learn  more. 

Binet  fully  appreciated  the  fact  that  intelligence  is  not 
homogeneous,  that  it  has  many  aspects,  and  that  no  one 
kind  of  test  will  display  it  adequately.  He  therefore  as- 
sembled for  his  intelligence  scale  tests  of  many  different 
types,  some  of  them  designed  to  display  differences  of 
memory,  others  differences  in  power  to  reason,  ability  to 
compare,  power  of  comprehension,  time  orientation,  facil- 
ity in  the  use  of  number  concepts,  power  to  combine 
ideas  into  a  meaningful  whole,  the  maturity  of  appercep- 
tion, wealth  of  ideas,  knowledge  of  common  objects,  etc. 

How  the  scale  was  derived.  The  tests  were  arranged  in 
order  of  difficulty,  as  found  by  trying  them  upon  some 
200  normal  children  of  different  ages  from  3  to  15  years. 
It  was  found,  for  illustration,  that  a  certain  test  was  passed 


THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD  37 

by  only  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  younger  children, 
say  the  5-year-olds,  and  that  the  number  passing  this  test 
increased  rapidly  in  the  succeeding  years  until  by  the  age 
of  7  or  8  years,  let  us  say,  practically  all  the  children  were 
successful.  If,  in  our  supposed  case,  the  test  was  passed  by 
about  two  thirds  to  three  fourths  of  the  normal  children 
aged  7  years,  it  was  considered  by  Binet  a  test  of  7-year 
intelligence.  In  like  manner,  a  test  passed  by  65  to  75  per 
cent  of  the  normal  9-year-olds  was  considered  a  test  of  9- 
year  intelligence,  and  so  on.  By  trying  out  many  different 
tests  in  this  way  it  was  possible  to  secure  five  tests  to  repre- 
sent each  age  from  3  to  10  years  (excepting  age  4,  which  has 
only  four  tests),  five  for  age  12,  five  for  15,  and  five  for 
adults,  making  54  tests  in  all. 

List  of  tests.  The  following  is  the  list  of  tests  as  arranged 
by  Binet  invl911,  shortly  before  his  untimely  death:  — 

Age  3: 

1.  Points  to  nose,  eyes,  and  mouth. 

2.  Repeats  two  digits. 

3.  Enumerates  objects  in  a  picture. 

4.  Gives  family  name. 

5.  Repeats  a  sentence  of  six  syllables. 

Age  4: 

1.  Gives  his  sex. 

2.  Names  key,  knife,  and  penny. 

3.  Repeats  three  digits. 

4.  Compares  two  lines. 
Age  5: 

1.  Compares  two  weights. 

2.  Copies  a  square. 

3.  Repeats  a  sentence  of  ten  syllables. 

4.  Counts  four  pennies. 

5.  Unites  the  halves  of  a  divided  rectangle. 
Age  6: 

1.  Distinguishes  between  morning  and  afternoon. 

2.  Defines  familiar  words  in  terms  of  use. 


3.  Copies  a  diamond. 

4.  Counts  thirteen  pennies. 

5.  Distinguishes  pictures  of  ugly  and  pretty  faces. 
Age  7: 

1.  Shows  right  hand  and  left  ear. 

2.  Describes  a  picture. 

3.  Executes  three  commissions,  given  simultaneously. 

4.  Counts  the  value  of  six  sous,  three  of  which  are  double. 

5.  Names  four  cardinal  colors. 

Age  8: 

1.  Compares  two  objects  from  memory. 

2.  Counts  from  20  to  0. 

3.  Notes  omissions  from  pictures. 

4.  Gives  day  and  date. 

5.  Repeats  five  digits. 

Age  9: 

1.  Gives  change  from  twenty  sous. 

2.  Defines  familiar  words  in  terms  superior  to  use. 

3.  Recognizes  all  the  pieces  of  money. 

4.  Names  the  months  of  the  year,  in  order. 

5.  Answers  easy  "comprehension  questions." 
Age  10: 

1.  Arranges  five  blocks  in  order  of  weight. 

2.  Copies  drawings  from  memory. 

3.  Criticizes  absurd  statements. 

4.  Answers  difficult  "comprehension  questions." 

5.  Uses  three  given  words  in  not  more  than  two  sentences. 

Age  12: 

1.  Resists  suggestion. 

2.  Composes  one  sentence  containing  three  given  words. 

3.  Names  sixty  words  hi  three  minutes. 

4.  Defines  certain  abstract  words. 

5.  Discovers  the  sense  of  a  disarranged  sentence. 

Age  15: 

1.  Repeats  seven  digits. 

2.  Finds  three  rhymes  for  a  given  word. 

3.  Repeats  a  sentence  of  twenty-six  syllables. 

4.  Interprets  pictures. 

5.  Interprets  given  facts. 


THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD  39 

AduU: 

1.  Solves  the  paper-cutting  test. 

2.  Rearranges  a  triangle  in  imagination. 

3.  Gives  differences  between  pairs  of  abstract  terms. 

4.  Gives  three  differences  between  a  president  and  a  king. 

5.  Gives  the  main  thought  of  a  selection  which  he  has  heard  read. 

It  should  be  emphasized  that  merely  to  name  the  tests 
in  this  way  gives  little  idea  of  their  nature  and  meaning, 
and  tells  nothing  about  Binet's  method  of  conducting  the 
54  experiments.  In  order  to  use  the  tests  intelligently  it  is 
necessary  to  acquaint  one's  sen*  thoroughly  with  the  pur- 
pose of  each  test,  its  correct  procedure,  and  the  psychologi- 
cal interpretation  of  different  types  of  response.1 

In  fairness  to  Binet,  it  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  scale  of  tests  was  only  a  rough  approximation  to  the 
ide^il  which  the  author  had  set  himself  to  realize.  Had  his 
life  been  spared  a  few  years  longer,  he  would  doubtless  have 
carried  the  method  much  nearer  perfection. 

How  the  scale  is  used.  By  means  of  the  Binet  tests  we 
can  judge  the  intelligence  of  a  given  individual  by  compari- 
son with  standards  of  intellectual  performance  for  normal 
children  of  different  ages.  In  order  to  make  the  comparison 
it  is  only  necessary  to  begin  the  examination  of  the  subject 
at  a  point  in  the  scale  where  all  the  tests  are  passed  suc- 
cessfully, and  to  continue  up  the  scale  until  no  more  suc- 
cesses are  possible.  Then  we  compare  our  subject's  per- 
formances with  the  standard  for  normal  children  of  the 
same  age,  and  note  the  amount  of  acceleration  or  retarda- 
tion. 

Let  us  suppose  the  subject  being  tested  is  9  years  of  age. 
If  he  goes  as  far  in  the  tests  as  normal  9-year-old  children 
ordinarily  go,  we  can  say  that  the  child  has  a  "  mental 

1  See  Part  II  of  this  volume,  and  References  1  and  29,  for  discussion  and 
interpretation  of  the  individual  tests. 


40        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

age  "  of  9  years,  which  in  this  case  is  normal  (our  child 
being  9  years  of  age).  If  he  goes  only  as  far  as  normal 
8-year-old  children  ordinarily  go,  we  say  that  his  "  mental 
age  "  is  8  years.  In  like  manner,  a  mentally  defective  child 
of  9  years  may  have  a  "  mental  age  "  of  only  4  years,  or  a 
young  genius  of  9  years  may  have  a  mental  age  of  12  or 
13  years. 

Special  characteristics  of  the  Binet-Simon  method. 
Psychologists  had  experimented  with  intelligence  tests  for 
at  least  twenty  years  before  the  Binet  scale  made  its  ap- 
pearance. The  question  naturally  suggests  itself  why  Binet 
should  have  been  successful  in  a  field  where  previous  efforts 
had  been  for  the  most  part  futile.  The  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion is  found  in  three  essential  differences  between  Binet's 
method  and  those  formerly  employed. 

1.  The  use  of  age  standards.  Binet  was  the  first  to  utilize 
the  idea  of  age  standards,  or  norms,  in  the  measurement  of 
intelligence.  It  will  be  understood,  of  course,  that  Binet 
did  not  set  out  to  invent  tests  of  10-year  intelligence,  6- 
year  intelligence,  etc.  Instead,  as  already  explained,  he 
began  with  a  series  of  tests  ranging  from  very  easy  to  very 
difficult,  and  by  trying  these  tests  on  children  of  different 
ages  and  noting  the  percentages  of  successes  in  the  various 
years,  he  was  able  to  locate  them  (approximately)  in  the 
years  where  they  belonged. 

This  plan  has  the  great  advantage  of  giving  us  standards 
which  are  easily  grasped.  To  say,  for  illustration,  that  a 
given  subject  has  a  grade  of  intelligence  equal  to  that  of  the 
average  child  of  8  years  is  a  statement  whose  general  im- 
port does  not  need  to  be  explained.  Previous  investigators 
had  worked  with  subjects  the  degree  of  whose  intelligence 
was  unknown,  and  with  tests  the  difficulty  of  which  was 
equally  unknown.  An  immense  amount  of  ingenuity  was 
spent  in  devising  tests  which  were  used  in  such  a  way  as  to 


THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD  41 

preclude  any  very  meaningful  interpretation  of  the  re- 
sponses. 

The  Binet  method  enables  us  to  characterize  the  in- 
telligence of  a  child  in  a  far  more  definite  way  than  had 
hitherto  been  possible.  Current  descriptive  terms  like 
"bright,"  "moderately  bright,"  "  dull,"  "very  dull," 
"  feeble-minded,"  etc.,  have  had  no  universally  accepted 
meaning.  A  child  who  is  designated  by  one  person  as 
"  moderately  bright  "  may  be  called  "  very  bright  "  by 
another  person.  The  degree  of  intelligence  which  one  calls 
"  moderate  dullness,"  another  may  call  "extreme  dullness," 
etc.  But  every  one  knows  what  is  meant  by  the  term 
8-year  mentality,  4-year  mentality,  etc.,  even  if  he  is  not 
able  to  define  these  grades  of  intelligence  in  psychological 
terms;  and  by  ascertaining  experimentally  what  intellectual 
tasks  children  of  different  ages  can  perform,  we  are,  of  course, 
able  to  make  our  age  standards  as  definite  as  we  please. 

Why  should  a  device  so  simple  have  waited  so  long  for  a 
discoverer?  We  do  not  know.  It  is  of  a  class  with  many 
other  unaccountable  mysteries  hi  the  development  of 
scientific  method.  Apparently  the  idea  of  an  age-grade 
method,  as  this  is  called,  did  not  come  to  Binet  himself 
until  he  had  experimented  with  intelligence  tests  for  some 
fifteen  years.  At  least  his  first  provisional  scale,  published 
in  1905,  was  not  made  up  according  to  the  age-grade  plan. 
It  consisted  merely  of  30  tests,  arranged  roughly  in  order 
of  difficulty.  Although  Binet  nowhere  gives  any  account  of 
the  steps  by  which  this  crude  and  ungraded  scale  was  trans- 
formed into  the  relatively  complete  age-grade  scale  of  1908, 
we  can  infer  that  the  original  and  ingenious  idea  of  utiliz- 
ing age  norms  was  suggested  by  the  data  collected  with  the 
1905  scale.  However  the  discovery  was  made,  it  ranks,  per- 
haps, from  the  practical  point  of  view,  as  the  most  important 
in  all  the  history  of  psychology. 


42        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE' 

2.  The  kind  of  mental  functions  brought  into  play.   In  the 
second  place,  the  Binet  tests  differ  from  most  of  the  earlier 
attempts  in  that  they  are  designed  to  test  the  higher  and 
more  complex  mental  processes,  instead  of  the  simpler  and 
more  elementary  ones.    Hence  they  set  problems  for  the 
reasoning  powers  and  ingenuity,  provoke  judgments  about 
abstract  matters,  etc.,  instead  of  attempting  to  measure 
sensory   discrimination,    mere   retentiveness,    rapidity   of 
reaction,  and  the  like.    Psychologists  had  generally  con- 
sidered the  higher  processes  too  complex  to  be  measured 
directly,  and  accordingly  sought  to  get  at  them  indirectly 
by  correlating  supposed  intelligence  with  simpler  processes 
which  could  readily  be  measured,  such  as  reaction  time, 
rapidity  of  tapping,  discrimination  of  tones  and  colors, 
etc.    While  they  were  disputing  over  their  contradictory 
findings  in  this  line  of  exploration,  Binet  went  directly  to 
the  point  and  succeeded  where  they  had  failed. 

It  is  now  generally  admitted  by  psychologists  that  higher 
intelligence  is  little  concerned  in  such  elementary  processes 
as  those  mentioned  above.  Many  of  the  animals  have  keen 
sensory  discrimination.  Feeble-minded  children,  unless  of 
very  low  grade,  do  not  differ  very  markedly  from  normal 
children  in  sensitivity  of  the  skin,  visual  acuity,  simple 
reaction  time,  type  of  imagery,  etc.  But  in  power  of  com- 
prehension, abstraction,  and  ability  to  direct  thought,  in 
the  nature  of  the  associative  processes,  hi  amount  of 
information  possessed,  and  in  spontaneity  of  attention,  they 
differ  enormously. 

3.  Binet    would    test    "  general    intelligence."     Finally, 
Binet's  success  was  largely  due  to  his  abandonment  of  the 
older  "  faculty  psychology"  which,  far  from  being  defunct, 
had  really  given  direction  to  most  of  the  earlier  work  with 
mental  tests.  Where  others  had  attempted  to  measure  mem- 
ory, attention,  sense  discrimination,  etc.,  as  separate  facul- 


THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD  43 

ties  or  functions,  Binet  undertook  to  ascertain  the  general 
level  of  intelligence.  Others  had  thought  the  task  easier 
of  accomplishment  by  measuring  each  division  or  aspect  of 
intelligence  separately,  and  summating  the  results.  Binet,. 
too,  began  in  this  way,  and  it  was  only  after  years  of  experi- 
mentation by  the  usual  methods  that  he  finally  broke  away 
from  them  and  undertook,  so  to  speak,  to  triangulate  the 
height  of  his  tower  without  first  getting  the  dimensions  of 
the  individual  stones  which  made  it  up. 

The  assumption  that  it  is  easier  to  measure  a  part,  or  one 
aspect,  of  intelligence  than  all  of  it,  is  fallacious  in  that  the 
parts  are  not  separate  parts  and  cannot  be  separated  by 
any  refinement  of  experiment.  They  are  interwoven  and 
intertwined.  Each  ramifies  everywhere  and  appears  in  all 
other  functions.  The  analogy  of  the  stones  of  the  tower  does 
not  really  apply.  Memory,  for  example,  cannot  be  tested 
separately  from  attention,  or  sense-discrimination  sepa- 
rately from  the  associative  processes.  After  many  vain  at- 
tempts to  disentangle  the  various  intellective  functions, 
Binet  decided  to  test  their  combined  functional  capacity 
without  any  pretense  of  measuring  the  exact  contribution 
of  each  to  the  total  product.  It  is  hardly  too  much  to  say 
that  intelligence  tests  have  been  successful  just  to  the  extent 
to  which  they  have  been  guided  by  this  aim. 

Memory,  attention,  imagination,  etc.,  are  terms  of 
"  structural  psychology."  Binet's  psychology  is  dynamic. 
He  conceives  intelligence  as  the  sum  total  of  those  thought 
processes  which  consist  in  mental  adaptation.  This  adapta- 
tion is  not  explicable  in  terms  of  the  old  mental  "  faculties." 
No  one  of  these  can  explain  a  single  thought  process,  for 
such  process  always  involves  the  participation  of  many 
functions  whose  separate  roles  are  impossible  to  distin- 
guish accurately.  Instead  of  measuring  the  intensity  of 
various  mental  states  (psycho-physics),  it  is  more  enlight- 


44        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

ening  to  measure  their  combined  effect  on  adaptation.  Using 
a  biological  comparison,  Binet  says  the  old  "  faculties  " 
correspond  to  the  separate  tissues  of  an  animal  or  plant, 
while  his  own  "  scheme  of  thought "  corresponds  to  the 
functioning  organ  itself.  For  Binet,  psychology  is  the 
science  of  behavior. 

Binet's  conception  of  general  intelligence.  In  devising 
tests  of  intelligence  it  is,  of  course,  necessary  to  be  guided 
by  some  assumption,  or  assumptions,  regarding  the  nature 
of  intelligence.  To  adopt  any  other  course  is  to  depend  for 
success  upon  happy  chance. 

However,  it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  a  final  definition  of 
intelligence  on  the  basis  of  a-priori  considerations  alone. 
To  demand,  as  critics  of  the  Binet  method  have  sometimes 
done,  that  one  who  would  measure  intelligence  should  first 
present  a  complete  definition  of  it,  is  quite  unreasonable. 
As  Stern  points  out,  electrical  currents  were  measured  long 
before  their  nature  was  well  understood.  Similar  illustra- 
tions could  be  drawn  from  the  processes  involved  in  chem- 
istry, physiology,  and  other  sciences.  In  the  case  of  in- 
telligence it  may  be  truthfully  said  that  no  adequate  defi- 
nition can  possibly  be  framed  which  is  not  based  primarily 
on  the  symptoms  empirically  brought  to  light  by  the  test 
method.  The  best  that  can  be  done  in  advance  of  such 
data  is  to  make  tentative  assumptions  as  to  the  probable 
nature  of  intelligence,  and  then  to  subject  these  assumptions 
to  tests  which  will  show  their  correctness  or  incorrectness. 
New  hypotheses  can  then  be  framed  for  further  trial,  and 
thus  gradually  we  shall  be  led  to  a  conception  of  intelli- 
gence which  will  be  meaningful  and  in  harmony  with  all 
the  ascertainable  facts 

Such  was  the  method  of  Binet.  Only  those  unacquainted 
with  Binet's  more  than  fifteen  years  of  labor  preceding  the 
publication  of  his  intelligence  scale  would  think  of  accus- 


THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD  45 

ing  him  of  making  no  effort  to  analyze  the  mental  proc- 
esses which  his  tests  bring  into  play.  It  is  true  that  many 
of  Binet's  earlier  assumptions  proved  untenable,  and  in 
this  event  he  was  always  ready,  with  exceptional  candor 
and  intellectual  plasticity,  to  acknowledge  his  error  and  to 
plan  a  new  line  of  attack. 

Binet's  conception  of  intelligence  emphasizes  three  char- 
acteristics of  the  thought  process:  (1)  Its  tendency  to  take 
and  maintain  a  definite  direction;  (2)  the  capacity  to 
make  adaptations  for  the  purpose  of  attaining  a  desired 
end;  and  (3)  the  power  of  auto-criticism.1 

How  these  three  aspects  of  intelligence  enter  into  the 
performances  with  various  tests  of  the  scale  is  set  forth  from 
time  to  time  in  our  directions  for  giving  and  interpreting  the 
individual  tests.2  An  illustration  which  may  be  given  here 
is  that  of  the  "  patience  test,"  or  uniting  the  disarranged 
parts  of  a  divided  rectangle.  As  described  by  Binet,  this 
operation  has  the  following  elements:  "  (1)  to  keep  in  mind 
the  end  to  be  attained,  that  is  to  say,  the  figure  to  be 
formed;  (2)  to  try  different  combinations  under  the  influ- 
ence of  this  directing  idea,  which  guides  the  efforts  of  the 
subject  even  though  he  may  not  be  conscious  of  the  fact; 
and  (3)  to  judge  the  combination  which  has  been  made,  to 
compare  it  with  the  model,  and  to  decide  whether  it  is  the 
correct  one." 

Much  the  same  processes  are  called  for  in  many  other  of 
the  Binet  tests,  particularly  those  of  arranging  weights, 
rearranging  dissected  sentences,  drawing  a  diamond  or 
square  from  copy,  finding  a  sentence  containing  three  given 
words,  counting  backwards,  etc. 

1  See  Binet  and  Simon:  " L'intelligence  des  imbeciles,"  in  L' Annie  Psy- 
chologique  (1909),  pp.  1-147.  The  last  division  of  this  article  is  devoted  to 
a  discussion  of  the  essential  nature  of  the  higher  thought  processes,  and  ia 
a  wonderful  example  of  that  keen  psychological  analysis  in  which  Binet 
was  so  gifted.  2  See  especially  pages  162  and  238. 


46        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

However,  an  examination  of  the  scale  will  show  that  the 
choice  of  tests  was  not  guided  entirely  by  any  single  for- 
mula as  to  the  nature  of  intelligence.  Binet's  approach  was 
a  many-sided  one.  The  scale  includes  tests  of  time  orienta- 
tion, of  three  or  four  kinds  of  memory,  of  apperception,  of 
language  comprehension,  of  knowledge  about  common  ob- 
jects, of  free  association,  of  number  mastery,  of  construc- 
tive imagination,  and  of  ability  to  compare  concepts,  to 
see  contradictions,  to  combine  fragments  into  a  unitary 
whole,  to  comprehend  abstract  terms,  and  to  meet  novel 
situations. 

Other  conceptions  of  intelligence.  It  is  interesting  to 
compare  Binet's  conception  of  intelligence  with  the  defini- 
tions which  have  been  offered  by  other  psychologists.  Ac- 
cording to  Ebbinghaus,  for  example,  the  essence  of  intelli- 
gence lies  in  comprehending  together  in  a  unitary,  meaning- 
ful whole,  impressions  and  associations  which  are  more  or 
less  independent,  heterogeneous,  or  even  partly  contra- 
dictory. "  Intellectual  ability  consists  in  the  elaboration  of 
a  whole  into  its  worth  and  meaning  by  means  of  many- 
sided  combination,  correction,  and  completion  of  numerous 
kindred  associations.  ...  It  is  a  combination  activity." 

Meumann  offers  a  twofold  definition.  From  the  psy- 
chological point  of  view,  intelligence  is  the  power  of  in- 
dependent and  creative  elaboration  of  new  products  out  of 
the  material  given  by  memory  and  the  senses.  From  the 
practical  point  of  view,  it  involves  the  ability  to  avoid 
errors,  to  surmount  difficulties,  and  to  adjust  to  environ- 
ment. 

Stern  defines  intelligence  as  "  the  general  capacity  of  an 
individual  consciously  to  adjust  his  thinking  to  new  re- 
quirements: it  is  general  adaptability  to  new  problems  and 
conditions  of  life." 
.  \         Spearman,  Hart,  and  others  of  the  English  school  define 


THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD  47 

intelligence  as  a  "  common  central  factor  "  which  partici- 
pates in  all  sorts  of  special  mental  activities.  This  factor  is 
explained  in  terms  of  a  psycho-physiological  hypothesis  of 
"  cortex  energy,"  "  cerebral  plasticity,"  etc. 

The  above  definitions  are  only  to  a  slight  extent  con- 
tradictory or  inharmonious.  They  differ  mainly  in  point 
of  view  or  in  the  location  of  the  emphasis.  Each  expresses 
a  part  of  the  truth,  and  none  all  of  it.  It  will  be  evident  that 
the  conception  of  Binet  is  broad  enough  to  include  the 
most  important  elements  in  each  of  the  other  definitions 
quoted. 

Guiding  principles  in  choice  and  arrangement  of  tests. 
In  choosing  his  tests  Binet  was  guided  by  the  conception  of 
intelligence  which  we  have  set  forth  above.  Tests  were  de- 
vised which  would  presumably  bring  into  play  the  various 
mental  processes  thought  to  be  concerned  in  intelligence, 
and  then  these  tests  were  tried  out  on  normal  children  of 
different  ages.  If  the  percentage  of  passes  for  a  given  test 
increased  but  little  or  not  at  all  in  going  from  younger  to 
older  children  this  test  was  discarded.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  the  proportion  of  passes  increased  rapidly  with  age,  and 
if  children  of  a  given  age,  who  on  other  grounds  were  known 
to  be  bright,  passed  more  frequently  than  children  of  the 
same  age  who  were  known  to  be  dull,  then  the  test  was 
judged  a  satisfactory  test  of  intelligence.  As  we  have  shown 
elsewhere,1  practically  all  of  Binet's  tests  fulfill  these  re- 
quirements reasonably  well,  a  fact  which  bears  eloquent 
testimony  to  the  keen  psychological  insight  of  their  author. 

In  arranging  the  tests  into  a  system  Binet's  guiding  prin- 
ciple was  to  find  an  arrangement  of  the  tests  which  would 
cause  an  average  child  of  any  given  age  to  test  "  at  age  "; 
that  is,  the  average  5-year-old  must  show  a  mental  age  of  5 
years,  the  average  8-year-old  a  mental  age  of  8  years,  etc. 

1  See  p.  55. 


48        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

In  order  to  secure  this  result  Binet  found  that  his  data 
seemed  to  require  the  location  of  an  individual  test  in  that 
year  where  it  was  passed  by  about  two  thirds  to  three 
fourths  of  unselected  children. 

It  was  in  the  assembling  of  the  tests  that  the  most  serious 
faults  of  the  scale  had  their  origin.  Further  investigation 
has  shown  that  a  great  many  of  the  tests  were  misplaced 
as  much  as  one  year,  and  several  of  them  two  years.  On 
the  whole,  the  scale  as  Binet  left  it  was  decidedly  too  easy 
in  the  lower  ranges,  and  too  difficult  in  the  upper.  As  a 
result,  the  average  child  of  5  years  was  caused  to  test  at 
not  far  from  6  years,  the  average  child  of  12  years  not  far 
from  11.  In  the  Stanford  revision  an  effort  has  been  made 
to  correct  this  fault,  along  with  certain  other  generally 
recognized  imperfections. 

Some  avowed  limitations  of  the  Binet  tests.  The  Binet 
tests  have  often  been  criticized  for  their  unfitness  to  perform 
certain  services  which  in  reality  they  were  never  meant  to 
render.  This  is  unfair.  We  cannot  make  a  just  evaluation 
of  the  scale  without  bearing  in  mind  its  avowed  limita- 
tions. 

For  example,  the  scale  does  not  pretend  to  measure  the 
entire  mentality  of  the  subject,  but  only  general  intelli- 
gence. There  is  no  pretense  of  testing  the  emotions  or  the 
will  beyond  the  extent  to  which  these  naturally  display 
themselves  in  the  tests  of  intelligence.  The  scale  was  not 
designed  as  a  tool  for  the  analysis  of  those  emotional  or 
volitional  aberrations  which  are  concerned  in  such  mental 
disorders  as  hysteria,  insanity,  etc.  These  conditions  do  not 
present  a  progressive  reduction  of  intelligence  to  the  in- 
fantile level,  and  in  most  of  them  other  factors  besides  in- 
telligence play  an  important  role.  Moreover,  even  in  the 
normal  individual  the  fruitfulness  of  intelligence,  the  direc- 
tion in  which  it  shall  be  applied,  and  its  methods  of  work 


THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD  49 

are  to  a  certain  extent  determined  by  the  extraneous  fac- 
tors of  emotion  and  volitidn. 

It  should,  nevertheless,  be  pointed  out  that  defects  of 
intelligence,  in  a  large  majority  of  cases,  also  involve  dis- 
turbances of  the  emotional  and  volitional  functions.  We 
do  not  expect  to  find  perfectly  normal  emotions  or  will 
power  of  average  strength  coupled  with  marked  intellectual 
deficiency,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  such  a  combination  is  rare 
indeed.  In  the  course  of  an  examination  with  the  Binet 
tests,  the  experienced  clinical  psychologist  is  able  to  gain 
considerable  insight  into  the  subject's  emotional  and  voli- 
tional equipment,  even  though  the  method  was  designed 
primarily  for  another  purpose. 

A  second  misunderstanding  can  be  avoided  by  remem- 
bering that  the  Binet  scale  does  not  pretend  to  bring  to 
light  the  idiosyncrasies  of  special  talent,  but  only  to  measure 
the  general  level  of  intelligence.  It  cannot  be  used  for  the 
discovery  of  exceptional  ability  in  drawing,  painting,  music, 
mathematics,  oratory,  salesmanship,  etc.,  because  no  ef- 
fort is  made  to  explore  the  processes  underlying  these  abil- 
ities. It  can,  therefore,  never  serve  as  a  detailed  chart 
for  the  vocational  guidance  of  children,  telling  us  which 
will  succeed  in  business,  which  in  art,  which  in  medicine, 
etc.  It  is  not  a  new  kind  of  phrenology.  At  the  same 
time,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out,  it  is  capable  of 
bounding  roughly  the  vocational  territory  in  which  an  indi- 
vidual's intelligence  mil  probably  permit  success,  nothing  else 
preventing.1 

In  the  third  place,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  scale 
can  be  used  as  a  complete  pedagogical  guide.  Although 
intelligence  tests  furnish  data  of  the  greatest  significance 
for  pedagogical  procedure,  they  do  not  suggest  the  appro- 
priate educational  methods  in  detail.  These  will  have  to 
1  See  p.  17. 


50        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

be  worked  out  in  a  practical  way  for  the  various  grades  of 
intelligence,  and  at  great  cost  of  labor  and  patience. 

Finally,  in  arriving  at  an  estimate  of  a  subject's  grade  of 
intelligence  and  his  susceptibility  to  training,  it  would 
be  a  mistake  to  ignore  the  data  obtainable  from  other 
sources.  No  competent  psychologist,  however  ardent  a 
supporter  of  the  Binet  method  he  might  be,  would  recom- 
mend such  a  policy.  Those  who  accept  the  method  as  all- 
sufficient  are  as  much  in  error  as  those  who  consider  it  as 
no  more  important  than  any  one  of  a  dozen  other  ap- 
proaches. Standardized  tests  have  already  become  and 
will  remain  by  far  the  most  reliable  single  method  for  grad- 
ing intelligence,  but  the  results  they  furnish  will  always  need 
to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  supplementary  information 
regarding  the  subject's  personal  history,  including  medical 
record,  accidents,  play  habits,  industrial  efficiency,  social 
and  moral  traits,  school  success,  home  environment,  etc. 
Without  question,  however,  the  improved  Binet  tests  will 
contribute  more  than  all  other  data  combined  to  the  end  of 
enabling  us  to  forecast  a  child's  possibilities  of  future  im- 
provement, and  this  is  the  information  which  will  aid 
most  in  the  proper  direction  of  his  education. 


CHAPTER   IV 

NATURE  OF  THE  STANFORD   REVISION  AND   EXTENSION 

ALTHOUGH  the  Binet  scale  quickly  demonstrated  its  value 
as  an  instrument  for  the  classification  of  mentally-retarded 
and  otherwise  exceptional  children,  it  had,  nevertheless, 
several  imperfections  which  greatly  limited  its  usefulness. 
There  was  a  dearth  of  tests  at  the  higher  mental  levels, 
the  procedure  was  so  inadequately  defined  that  needless 
disagreement  came  about  in  the  interpretation  of  data, 
and  so  many  of  the  tests  were  misplaced  as  to  make  the 
results  of  an  examination  more  or  less  misleading,  particu- 
larly in  the  case  of  very  young  subjects  and  those  near  the 
adult  level.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  these  and 
certain  other  faults  that  the  Stanford  investigation  was 
planned.1 

Sources  of  data.  Our  revision  is  the  result  of  several 
years  of  work,  and  involved  the  examination  of  approxi- 
mately 2300  subjects,  including  1700  normal  children, 

1  The  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  his  very  great  indebtedness  to  Miss 
Grace  Lyman,  Dr.  George  Ordahl,  Dr.  Louise  Ellison  Ordahl,  Miss  Neva 
Galbrcath,  Mr.  Wilford  Talbert,  Dr.  J.  Harold  Williams,  Mr.  Herbert  E. 
KIM illin,  and  Miss  Irene  Cuneo  for  their  cooperation  in  making  the  tests 
on  which  the  Stanford  revision  is  chiefly  based.  Without  their  loyal  as- 
sistance the  investigation  could  not  have  been  carried  through. 

Grateful  acknowledgment  is  also  made  to  the  many  public  school  teach- 
ers and  principals  for  their  generous  and  invaluable  cooperation  in  furnish- 
ing subjects  for  the  tests,  and  in  supplying,  sometimes  at  considerable  cost 
of  labor,  the  supplementary  information  which  was  called  for  regarding 
the  pupils  tested.  Their  contribution  was  made  in  the  interest  of  educa- 
tional science,  and  without  expectation  of  personal  benefits  of  any  kind. 
Their  professional  spirit  cannot  be  too  highly  commended. 


52        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

200  defective  and  superior  children,  and  more  than  400 
adults. 

Tests  of  400  of  the  1700  normal  children  had  been 
made  by  Childs  and  Terman  in  1910-11,  and  of  300  chil- 
dren by  Trost,  Waddle,  and  Terman  in  1911-12.  For 
various  reasons,  however,  the  results  of  these  tests  did  not 
furnish  satisfactory  data  for  a  thoroughgoing  revision  of 
the  scale.  Accordingly  a  new  investigation  was  undertaken, 
somewhat  more  extensive  than  the  others,  and  more  care- 
fully planned.  Its  main  features  may  be  described  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

1.  The  first  step  was  to  assemble  as  nearly  as  possible 
all  the  results  which  had  been  secured  for  each  test  of  the 
scale  by  all  the  workers  of  all  countries.   The  result  was  a 
large  sheet  of  tabulated  data  for  each  individual  test, 
including  percentages  passing  the  test  at  various  ages, 
conditions  under  which  the  results  were  secured,  method  of 
procedure,  etc.    After  a  comparative  study  of  these  data, 
and  in  the  light  of  results  we  had  ourselves  secured,  a 
provisional   arrangement  of  the  tests   was   prepared  for 
try-out. 

2.  In  addition  to  the  tests  of  the  original  Binet  scale, 
40  additional  tests  were  included  for  try-out.    This,  it  was 
expected,  would  make  possible  the  elimination  of  some  of 
the  least  satisfactory  tests,  and  at  the  same  time  permit 
the  addition  of  enough  new  ones  to  give  at  least  six  tests, 
instead  of  five,  for  each  age  group. 

3.  A  plan  was  then  devised  for  securing  subjects  who 
should  be  as  nearly  as  possible  representative  of  the  several 
ages.   The  method  was  to  select  a  school  in  a  community 
of  average  social  status,  a  school  attended  by  all  or  prac- 
tically all  the  children  in  the  district  where  it  was  located. 
In  order  to  get  clear  pictures  of  age  differences  the  tests 
were  confined  to  children  who  were  within  two  months  of  a 


THE  STANFORD  REVISION  53 

birthday.  To  avoid  accidental  selection,  all  the  children 
within  two  months  of  a  birthday  were  tested,  in  whatever 
grade  enrolled.  Tests  of  foreign-born  children,  however, 
were  eliminated  in  the  treatment  of  results.  There  remained 
tests  of  approximately  1000  children,  of  whom  905  were 
between  5  and  14  years  of  age. 

4.  The  children's   responses  were,  for  the   most  part, 
recorded  verbatim.    This  made  it  possible  to  re-score  the 
records  according  to  any  desired  standard,  and  thus  to 
fit  a  test  more  perfectly  to  the  age  level  assigned  it. 

5.  Much  attention  was  given  to  securing  uniformity  of 
procedure.    A  half-year  was  devoted  to  training  the  ex- 
aminers, and  another  half-year  to  the  supervision  of  the 
testing.    In  the  further  interests  of  uniformity  all  the  rec- 
ords were  scored  by  one  person  (the  writer). 

Method  of  arriving  at  a  revision.  The  revision  of  the 
scale  below  the  14-year  level  was  based  almost  entirely  on 
the  tests  of  the  above-mentioned  1,000  unselected  children. 
The  guiding  principle  was  to  secure  an  arrangement  of  the 
tests  and  a  standard  of  scoring  which  would  cause  the 
median  mental  age  of  the  unselected  children  of  each  age 
group  to  coincide  with  the  median  chronological  age. 
That  is,  a  correct  scale  must  cause  the  average  child  of  5 
years  to  test  exactly  at  5,  the  average  child  at  6  to  test 
exactly  at  6,  etc.  Or,  to  express  the  same  fact  in  terms  of 
intelligence  quotient,1  a  correct  scale  must  give  a  median 
intelligence  quotient  of  unity,  or  100  per  cent,  for  unselected 
children  of  each  age. 

If  the  median  mental  age  resulting  at  any  point  from  the 
provisional  arrangement  of  tests  was  too  high  or  too  low, 
it  was  only  necessary  to  change  the  location  of  certain  of 
the  tests,  or  to  change  the  standard  of  scoring,  until  an 

1  The  intelligence  quotient  (often  designated  as  I  Q)  is  the  ratio  of 
mental  age  to  chronological  age.  (Sec  pp.  05  ff.  and  78  jf.) 


54        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

order  of  arrangement  and  a  standard  of  passing  were  found 
which  would  throw  the  median  mental  age  where  it  be- 
longed. We  had  already  become  convinced,  for  reasons  too 
involved  for  presentation  here,  that  no  satisfactory  revision 
of  the  Binet  scale  was  possible  on  any  theoretical  considera- 
tions as  to  the  percentage  of  passes  which  an  individual 
test  ought  to  show  in  a  given  year  in  order  to  be  consid- 
ered standard  for  that  year. 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  first  draft  of  the  revision  did 
not  prove  satisfactory.  The  scale  was  still  too  hard  at 
some  points,  and  too  easy  at  others.  In  fact,  three  succes- 
sive revisions  were  necessary,  involving  three  separate 
scorings  of  the  data  and  as  many  tabulations  of  the 
mental  ages,  before  the  desired  degree  of  accuracy  was 
secured.  As  finally  revised,  the  scale  gives  a  median  in- 
telligence quotient  closely  approximating  100  for  the 
unselected  children  of  each  age  from  4  to  14. 

Since  our  school  children  who  were  above  14  years  and 
still  in  the  grades  were  retarded  left-overs,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  base  the  revision  above  this  level  on  the  tests  of 
adults.  These  included  30  business  men  and  150  "  migrat- 
ing "  unemployed  men  tested  by  Mr.  H.  E.  Knollin,  150 
adolescent  delinquents  tested  by  Mr.  J.  Harold  Williams, 
and  50  high-school  students  tested  by  the  writer. 

The  extension  of  the  scale  in  the  upper  range  is  such 
that  ordinarily  intelligent  adults,  little  educated,  test  up 
to  what  is  called  the  "average  adult  "  level.  Adults  whose 
intelligence  is  known  from  other  sources  to  be  superior  are 
found  to  test  well  up  toward  the  "  superior  adult "  level, 
and  this  holds  whether  the  subjects  in  question  are  well 
educated  or  practically  unschooled.  The  almost  entirely 
unschooled  business  men,  in  fact,  tested  fully  as  well  as 
high-school  juniors  and  seniors. 

Figure  1  shows  the  distribution  of  mental  ages  for  62 


THE  STANFORD  REVISION 


55 


adults,  including  the  30  business  men  and  the  32  high- 
school  pupils  who  were  over  16  years  of  age.  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  middle  section  of  the  graph  represents  the 
"  mental  ages  "  falling  between  15  and  17.  This  is  the  range 
which  we  have  designated  as  the  "  average  adult "  level. 
Those  above  17  are  called  "  superior  adults,"  those  between 
13  and  15,  "  inferior  adults."  Subjects  much  over  15  years 
of  age  who  test  in  the  neighborhood  of  12  years  may 
ordinarily  be  considered 
border-line  cases. 

The  following  method 
was  employed  for  deter- 
mining the  validity  of 
a  test.  The  children  of 
each  age  level  were  di- 
vided into  three  groups 
according  to  intelli- 
gence quotient,  those 
testing  below  90,  those 
between  90  and  109, 
and  those  with  an  in- 
telligence quotient  of 
110  or  above.  The  per- 
centages of  passes  on  each  individual  test  at  or  near  that 
age  level  were  then  ascertained  separately  for  these  three 
groups.  If  a  test  fails  to  show  a  decidedly  higher  propor- 
tion of  passes  in  the  superior  I  Q  group  than  in  the  inferior 
I  Q  group,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  satisfactory  test  of 
intelligence.  On  the  other  hand,  a  test  which  satisfies  this 
criterion  must  be  accepted  as  valid  or  the  entire  scale  must 
be  rejected.  Henceforth  it  stands  or  falls  with  the  scale  as 
a  whole. 

When  tried  out  by  this  method,  some  of  the  tests  which 
have  been  most  criticized  showed  a  high  degree  of  relia- 


13  to  13  11  14  to  14  11  15  to  15  11  17  toJ7  11  18  to  18  11 
1.8*  17.7*  69.7*  16.2*  t£t 

Fia.  1.    DISTRIBUTION  OF  MENTAL  AGES 
OF  62  NORMAL  ADULTS 


56        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

bility;  certain  others  which  have  been  considered  excellent 
proved  to  be  so  little  correlated  with  intelligence  that  they 
had  to  be  discarded. 

After  making  a  few  necessary  eliminations,  90  tests  re- 
mained, or  36  more  than  the  number  included  in  the  Binet 
1911  scale.  There  are  6  at  each  age  level  from  3  to  10, 
8  at  12,  6  at  14,  6  at  "  average  adult,"  6  at  "  superior  adult," 
and  16  alternative  tests.  The  alternative  tests,  which  are 
distributed  among  the  different  groups,  are  intended  to 
be  used  only  as  substitutes  when  one  or  more  of  the  regular 
tests  have  been  rendered,  by  coaching  or  otherwise,  un- 
desirable.1 

Of  the  36  new  tests,  27  were  added  and  standardized 
in  the  various  Stanford  investigations.  Two  tests  were 
borrowed  from  the  Healy-Fernald  series,  one  from  Kuhl- 
mann,  one  was  adapted  from  Bonser,  and  the  remaining 
five  were  amplifications  or  adaptations  of  some  of  the 
earlier  Binet  tests. 

Following  is  a  complete  list  of  the  tests  of  the  Stanford 
revision.  Those  designated  al.  are  alternative  tests.  The 
guide  for  giving  and  scoring  the  tests  is  presented  at  length 
in  Part  II  of  this  volume. 

The  Stanford  revision  and  extension 
Year  III.   (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Points  to  parts  of  body.    (3  of  4.) 

Nose;  eyes;  mouth;  hair. 

2.  Names  familiar  objects.    (3  of  5.) 

Key,  penny,  closed  knife,  watch,  pencil. 

3.  Pictures,  enumeration  or  better.   (At  least  3  objects  enumer- 
ated in  one  picture.) 

(a)  Dutch  Home;  (6)  River  Scene;  (c)  Post-Office. 

4.  Gives  sex. 

5.  Gives  last  name. 

1  See  p.  137  ff.  for  explanations  regarding  the  calculation  of  mental  ags 
and  the  use  of  alternative  tests. 


THE  STANFORD  REVISION  57 

6.  Repeats  6  to  7  syllables.     (1  of  3.) 
Al.  Repeats  3  digits.    (1  success  in  3  trials.   Order  correct.) 

Year  IV.    (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Compares  lines.    (3  trials,  no  error.) 

2.  Discrimination  of  forms.    (Kuhlmann.)    (Not  over  3  errors.) 

3.  Counts  4  pennies.    (No  error.) 

4.  Copies  square.    (Pencil.    1  of  3.) 

5.  Comprehension,  1st  degree.   (2  of  3.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

"What  must  you  do":  "When  you  are  sleepy?"  "Cold?" 
"Hungry?" 

6.  Repeats  4  digits.    (1  of  3.   Order  correct.)    (Stanford  addi- 
tion.) 

Al.  Repeats  12  to  13  syllables.    (1  of  3  absolutely  correct,  or  2 
with  1  error  each.) 

Year  V.   (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Comparison  of  weights.    (2  of  3.) 

3-15;  15-3;  3-15. 

2.  Colors.    (No  error.) 

Red;  yellow;  blue;  green. 
8.  ^Esthetic  comparison.    (No  error.) 

4.  Definitions,  use  or  better.    (4  of  6.) 

Chair;  horse;  fork;  doll;  pencil;  table. 

5.  Patience,  or  divided  rectangle.  (2  of  3  trials.  1  minute  each.) 

6.  Three  commissions.   (No  error.  Order  correct.) 
Al.  Age. 

Year  VI.   (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Right  and  left.    (No  error.) 

Right  hand;  left  ear;  right  eye. 

2.  Mutilated  pictures.    (3  of  4  correct.) 

3.  Counts  13  pennies.    (1  of  2  trials,  without  error.) 

4.  Comprehension,  2d  degree.   (2  of  3.)   "What's  the  thing  for 
you  to  do": 

(a)  "If  it  is  raining  when  you  start  to  school?" 

(6)   "If  you  find  that  your  house  is  on  fire?" 

(c)   "If  you  are  going  some  place  and  miss  your  car?" 

5.  Coins.   (3  of  4.) 

Nickel;  penny;  quarter;  dime. 

6.  Repeats  16  to  18  syllables.    (1  of  3  absolutely  correct,  or  2 
with  1  error  each.) 

Al.  Morning  or  afternoon. 


58        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Year  VII.    (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Fingers.    (No  error.)   Right;  left;  both. 

2.  Pictures,  description  or  better.    (Over  half  of  performance 
description:)  Dutch  Home;  River  Scene;  Post-Office. 

3.  Repeats  5  digits.    (1  of  3.   Order  correct.) 

4.  Ties  bow-knot.    (Model  shown.    1  minute.)    (Stanford  ad- 
dition.) 

5.  Gives  differences.     (2  of  3.) 

Fly  and  butterfly;  stone  and  egg;  wood  and  glass. 

6.  Copies  diamond.    (Pen.   2  of  3.) 

Al.  1.  Names  days  of  week.  (Order  correct.  2  of  3  checks  correct.) 
Al.  2.  Repeats  3  digits  backwards.   (1  of  3.) 

Year  VIII.   (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Ball  and  field.    (Inferior  plan  or  better.)    (Stanford  addi- 
tion.) 

2.  Counts  20  to  1.    (40  seconds.   1  error  allowed.) 

3.  Comprehension,  3d  degree.   (2  of  3.)   "What's  the  thing  for 
you  to  do": 

(a)  "When  you  have  broken  something  which  belongs  to 
some  one  else?" 

(b)  "When  you  are  on  your  way  to  school  and  notice  that 
you  are  in  danger  of  being  tardy?" 

(c)  "If  a  playmate  hits  you  without  meaning  to  do  it?" 

4.  Gives  similarities,  two  things.   (2  of  4.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

Wood  and  coal;  apple  and  peach;  iron  and  silver;  ship  and 
automobile. 

5.  Definitions  superior  to  use.    (2  of  4.) 

Balloon;  tiger;  football;  soldier. 

6.  Vocabulary,  20  words.  (Stanford  addition.  For  list  of  words 
used,  see  record  booklet.) 

Al.  1.  First  six  coins.     (No  error.) 

Al.  2.  Dictation.    ("See  the  little  boy."    Easily  legible.  Pen.  1 
minute.) 

Year  IX.   (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Date.   (Allow  error  of  3  days  in  c,  no  error  in  a,  b,  or  d.) 

(a)  day  of  week;  (b)  month;  (c)  day  of  month;  (d)  year. 

2.  Weights.   (3,  6,  9,  12,  15.  Procedure  not  illustrated.  2  of  3.) 

3.  Makes  change.   (2  of  3.  No  coins,  paper,  or  pencil.) 

10-4;  15-  12;  25 -4. 


THE  STANFORD  REVISION  59 

4.  Repeats  4  digits  backwards.   (1  of  3.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

5.  Three  words.  (2  of  3.   Oral.    1  sentence  or  not  over  2  coordi- 
nate clauses.) 

Boy,  river,  ball;  work,  money,  men;  desert,  rivers,  lakes. 

6.  Rhymes.    (3  rhymes  for  two  of  three  words.    1  minute  for 
each  part.) 

Day;  mill;  spring. 

Al.  1.  Months.  (15  seconds  and  1  error  in  naming.  2  checks  of 
3  correct.) 

Al.  2.  Stamps,  gives  total  value.  (Second  trial  if  individual  val- 
ues are  known.) 

Year  X.   (6  tests,  2  months  each.) 

1.  Vocabulary,  30  words.    (Stanford  addition.) 

2.  Absurdities.    (4  of  5.    Warn.    Spontaneous  correction  al- 
lowed.)   (Four  of  Binet's,  one  Stanford.) 

3.  Designs.   (1  correct,  1  half  correct.  Expose  10  seconds.) 

4.  Reading  and  report.    (8  memories.    35  seconds  and  2  mis- 
takes in  reading.)     (Binet's  selection.) 

5.  Comprehension,  4th  degree.    (2  of  3.    Question  may  be 
repeated.) 

(a)  "What  ought  you  to  say  when  some  one  asks  your 
opinion  about  a  person  you  don't  know  very  well?" 

(6)  "What  ought  you  to  do  before  undertaking  (beginning) 
something  very  important?  " 

(c)  "Why  should  we  judge  a  person  more  by  his  actions 
than  by  his  words?" 

6.  Names  60  words.   (Illustrate  with  clouds,  dog,  chair,  happy.) 
Al.  1.  Repeats  6  digits.    (1  of  2.    Order  correct.)     (Stanford 

addition.) 
Al.  2.  Repeats  20  to  22  syllables.    (1  of  3  correct,  or  2  with  1 

error  each.) 
Al.  3.  Form  board.     (Healy-Fernald  Puzzle  A.    3  times  in  5 

minutes.) 

Year  XII.    (8  tests,  3  months  each.) 

1.  Vocabulary,  40  words.    (Stanford  addition.) 

2.  Abstract  words.    (3  of  5.) 

Pity;  revenge;  charity;  envy;  justice. 

3.  Ball  and  field.    (Superior  plan.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

4.  Dissected  sentences.    (2  of  3.   1  minute  each.) 


60        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

5.  Fables.    (Score  4;  i.e.,  two  correct  or  the  equivalent  in  half 
credits.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

Hercules  and  Wagoner;  Maid  and  Eggs;  Fox  and  Crow; 
Farmer  and  Stork;  Miller,  Son,  and  Donkey. 

6.  Repeats  5  digits  backwards.   (1  of  3.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

7.  Pictures,  interpretation.   (3  of  4.   "Explain  this  picture.") 

Dutch  Home;  River  Scene;  Post-Office;  Colonial  Home. 

8.  Gives  similarities,  three  things.  (3  of  5.)   (Stanford  addition.) 

Snake,  cow,  sparrow;  book,  teacher,  newspaper;  wool,  cot- 
ton, leather;  knife-blade,  penny,  piece  of  wire;  rose,  potato, 
tree. 

Year  XIV.   (6  tests,  4  months  each.) 

1.  Vocabulary,  50  words.    (Stanford  addition.) 

2.  Induction  test.    (Gets  rule  by  6th  folding.)    (Stanford  addi- 
tion.) 

3.  President  and  king.   (Power;  accession;  tenure.   2  of  3.) 

4.  Problems  of  fact.    (2  of  3.)    (Binet's  two  and  one  Stanford 
addition.) 

5.  Arithmetical  reasoning.   (1  minute  each.  2  of  3.)   (Adapted 
from  Bonser.) 

/    6.  Clock.   (2  of  3.  Error  must  not  exceed  3  or  4  minutes.) 

6.22.   8.10.   2.46. 
Al.  Repeats  7  digits.    (1  of  2.   Order  correct.) 

"AVERAGE  ADULT."    (6  tests,  5  months  each.) 

1.  Vocabulary,  65  words.    (Stanford  addition.) 

2.  Interpretation  of  fables.   (Score  8.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

3.  Difference  between  abstract  words.    (3  real  contrasts  out 
of  4.) 

Laziness  and  idleness;  evolution  and  revolution;  poverty 
and  misery;  character  and  reputation. 

4.  Problem  of  the  enclosed  boxes.  (3  of  4.)   (Stanford  addition.) 

5.  Repeats  6  digits  backwards.   (1  of  3.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

6.  Code,  writes  "Come  quickly."    (2  errors.    Omission  of  dot 
counts  hah*  error.  Illustrate  with  "war"  and  "spy.")   (From 
Healy  and  Fernald.) 

Al.  1.  Repeats  28  syllables.   (1  of  2  absolutely  correct.) 
Al.  2.  Comprehension  of  physical  relations.   (2  of  3.)    (Stanford 
addition.) 

Path  of  cannon  ball;  weight  of  fish  in  water;  hitting  dis- 
tant mark. 


THE  STANFORD  REVISION  61 

"SUPERIOR  ADULT."   (6  tests,  6  months  each.) 

1.  Vocabulary,  75  words.    (Stanford  addition.) 

2.  Binet's  paper-cutting  test.   (Draws,  folds,  and  locates  holes.) 

3.  Repeats  8  digits.    (1  of  3.   Order  correct.)    (Stanford  addi- 
tion.) 

4.  Repeats  thought  of  passage  heard.    (1  of  2.)    (Binet's  and 
Wissler's  selections  adapted.) 

5.  Repeats  7  digits  backwards.   (1  of  3.)    (Stanford  addition.) 

6.  Ingenuity  test.  (2  of  3.  5  minutes  each.)  (Stanford  addition.) 

Summary  of  changes.  A  comparison  of  the  above  list 
with  either  the  Binet  1908  or  1911  series  will  reveal  many 
changes.  On  the  whole,  it  differs  somewhat  more  from  the 
Binet  1911  scale  than  from  that  of  1908.  Thus,  of  the  49 
tests  below  the  "  adult  "  group  in  the  1911  scale,  2  are 
eliminated  and  29  are  relocated.  Of  these,  25  are  moved 
downward  and  4  upward.  The  shifts  are  as  follows:  — 

Down  1  year,  18 
Down  2  years,  4 
Down  3  years,  2 
Down  6  years,  1 

Up  1  year,   8 

Up  2  years,  1 

Of  the  adult  group  in  Binet's  1911  series  1  is  eliminated, 
2  are  moved  up  to  "  superior  adult,"  and  1  is  moved  up  to 
14.  Accordingly,  of  Binet's  entire  54  tests,  we  have  elimi- 
nated 3  and  relocated  32,  leaving  only  19  in  the  positions 
assigned  them  by  Binet.  The  3  eliminated  are:  repeating 
2  digits,  resisting  suggestion,  and  "  reversed  triangle." 

The  revision  is  really  more  extensive  than  the  above 
figures  would  suggest,  since  minor  changes  have  been  made 
in  the  scoring  of  a  great  many  tests  in  order  to  make  them 
fit  better  the  locations  assigned  them.  Throughout  the 
scale  the  procedure  and  scoring  have  been  worked  over 
and  made  more  definite  with  the  idea  of  promoting  uni- 
formity. This  phase  of  the  revision  is  perhaps  more  im- 


62        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

portant  than  the  mere  relocation  of  tests.  Also,  the  addi-. 
tion  of  numerous  tests  in  the  upper  ranges  of  the  scale 
affects  very  considerably  the  mental  ages  above  the  level 
of  10  or  11  years. 

Effects  of  the  revision  on  the  mental  ages  secured.  The 
most  important  effect  of  the  revision  is  to  reduce  the  mental 
ages  secured  in  the  lower  ranges  of  the  scale,  and  to  raise 
considerably  the  mental  ages  above  10  or  11  years.  This 
difference  also  obtains,  though  to  a  somewhat  smaller  ex- 
tent, between  the  Stanford  revision  and  those  of  Goddard 
and  Kuhlmann. 

For  example,  of  104  adult  individuals  testing  by  the  Stan- 
ford revision  between  12  and  14  years,  and  who  were  there- 
fore somewhat  above  the  level  of  feeble-mindedness  as  that 
term  is  usually  defined,  50  per  cent  tested  below  12  years  by 
the  Goddard  revision.  That  the  dull  and  border-line  adults 
are  so  much  more  readily  distinguished  from  the  feeble- 
minded by  the  Stanford  revision  than  by  other  Binet  series 
is  due  as  much  to  the  addition  of  tests  in  the  upper  groups 
as  to  the  relocation  of  existing  tests. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Stanford  revision  causes  young 
subjects  to  test  lower  than  any  other  version  of  the  Binet 
scale.  At  5  or  6  years  the  mental  ages  secured  by  the  Stan- 
ford revision  average  from  6  to  10  months  lower  than  other 
revisions  yield. 

The  above  differences  are  more  significant  than  would  at 
first  appear.  An  error  of  10  months  in  the  mental  age  of  a 
5-year-old  is  as  serious  as  an  error  of  20  months  in  the  case 
of  a  10-year-old.  Stating  the  error  in  terms  of  the  intelli- 
gence quotient  makes  it  more  evident.  Thus,  an  error  of 
10  months  in  the  mental  age  of  a  5-year-old  means  an  error 
of  almost  15  per  cent  in  the  intelligence  quotient.  A  scale 
which  tests  this  much  too  low  would  cause  the  child  with  a 
true  intelligence  quotient  of  75  (which  ordinarily  means 


THE  STANFORD  REVISION  63 

feeble-mindedness  or  border-line  intelligence)   to  test  at 
90,  or  only  slightly  below  normal. 

Three  serious  consequences  came  from  the  too  great 
ease  of  the  original  Binet  scale  at  the  lower  end,  and  its 
too  great  difficulty  at  the  upper  end :  — 

1.  In  young  subjects  the  higher  grades  of  mental  de- 
ficiency were  overlooked,  because  the  scale  caused  such 
subjects  to  test  only  a  little  below  normal. 

2.  The  proportion  of  feeble-mindedness   among  adult 
subjects  was  greatly  overestimated,  because  subjects  who 
were  really  of  the  12-  or  13-year  mental  level  could  only 
earn  a  mental  age  of  about  11  years. 

3.  Confusion  resulted   in  efforts   to   trace  the   mental 
growth  of  either  feeble-minded  or  normal  children.    For 
example,  by  other  versions  of  the  Binet  scale  an  average 
5-year-old  will  show  an  intelligence  quotient  probably  not 
far  from  110  or  115;  at  9,  an  intelligence  quotient  of  about 
100;  and  at  14,  an  intelligence  quotient  of  about  85  or  90. 

By  such  a  scale  the  true  border-line  case  would  test 
approximately  as  follows :  — 

At  age  5,  90  I  Q  (apparently  not  far  below  normal). 

At  age  9,  75  I  Q  (border-line). 

At  age  14,  65  I  Q  (moron  deficiency). 

On  the  other  hand,  re- tests  of  children  by  the  Stanford 
revision  have  been  found  to  yield  intelligence  quotients 
almost  identical  with  those  secured  from  two  to  four  years 
earlier  by  the  same  tests.  Those  who  graded  feeble-minded 
in  the  first  test  graded  feeble-minded  in  the  second  test; 
the  dull  remained  dull,  the  average  remained  average,  the 
superior  remained  superior,  and  always  in  approximately 
the  same  degree.1 

1  See  "  Some  Problems  relating  to  the  Detection  of  Border-line  Cases 
of  Mental  Deficiency,"  by  Lewis  M.  Terman  and  H.  E.  Knollin,  in  Journal 
of  Psycho-Asthemes,  June,  1916. 


64        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

It  is  unnecessary  to  emphasize  further  the  importance  of 
having  an  intelligence  scale  which  is  equally  accurate  at  all 
points.  Absolute  perfection  in  this  respect  is  not  claimed 
for  the  Stanford  revision,  but  it  is  believed  to  be  at  least 
free  from  the  more  serious  errors  of  other  Binet  arrange- 
ments. 


CHAPTER  V 

ANALYSIS  OF  1000  INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS 

AN  extended  account  of  the  1000  tests  on  which  the 
Stanford  revision  is  chiefly  based  has  been  presented  in  a 
separate  monograph.  This  chapter  will  include  only  the 
briefest  summary  of  some  of  those  results  of  the  investiga- 
tion which  contribute  to  the  intelligent  use  of  the  revi- 
sion. 

The  distribution  of  intelligence.  The  question  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  intelligence  is  distributed  is  one  of  great 
practical  as  well  as  theoretical  importance.  One  of  the  most 
vital  questions  which  can  be  asked  by  any  nation  of  any 
age  is  the  following:  "  How  high  is  the  average  level  of 
intelligence  among  our  people,  and  how  frequent  are  the 
various  grades  of  ability  above  and  below  the  average?  " 
With  the  development  of  standardized  tests  we  are  ap- 
proaching, for  the  first  time  in  history,  a  possible  answer 
to  this  question. 

Most  of  the  earlier  Binet  studies,  however,  have  thrown 
little  light  on  the  distribution  of  intelligence  because  of 
their  failure  to  avoid  the  influence  of  accidental  selection 
in  choosing  subjects  for  testing.  The  method  of  securing 
subjects  for  the  Stanford  revision  makes  our  results  on  this 
point  especially  interesting.1  It  is  believed  that  the  sub- 
jects used  for  this  investigation  were  as  nearly  representa- 
tive of  average  American-born  children  as  it  is  possible  to 
secure. 

1  See  p.  52  ff.  for  method  used  to  avoid  accidental  selection  of  subjects 
for  the  Stanford  investigation. 


66        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

The  intelligence  quotients  for  these  1000  unselected  chil- 
dren were  calculated,  and  their  distribution  was  plotted 
for  the  ages  separately.  The  distribution  was  found  fairly 
symmetrical  at  each  age  from  5  to  14.  At  15  the  range  is  on 
either  side  of  90  as  a  median,  and  at  16  on  either  side  of  80 
as  a  median.  That  the  15-  and  16-year-olds  test  low  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  these  children  are  left-over  retardates  and 
are  below  average  in  intelligence. 

The  I  Q's  were  then  grouped  in  ranges  of  ten.  In  the 
middle  group  were  thrown  those  from  96  to  105;  the  ascend- 


56-65          66-75  16-35  86-95          96-105        106-115        116-125       126-135       136-145 

.S3*'          &3<      i  8.6<  20J.<         83.9.*          23.1*  9.0*  2.3*          .55* 

FIG.  2.    DISTRIBUTION  OF  I  Q'S  OF  905  UNSELECTED  CHILDREN, 
6-14  YEARS  OF  AGE 

ing  groups  including  in  order  the  I  Q's  from  106  to  115, 
116  to  125,  etc.;  correspondingly  with  the  descending 
groups.  Figure  2  shows  the  distribution  found  by  this 
grouping  for  the  905  children  of  ages  5  to  14  combined. 
The  subjects  above  14  are  not  included  in  this  curve  be- 
cause they  are  left-overs  and  not  representative  of  their  ages. 
The  distribution  for  the  ages  combined  is  seen  to  be  re- 
markably symmetrical.  The  symmetry  for  the  separate 
ages  was  hardly  less  marked,  considering  that  only  80  to 
120  children  were  tested  at  each  age.  In  fact,  the  range, 
including  the  middle  50  per  cent  of  I  Q's,  was  found 
practically  constant  from  5  to  14  years.  The  tendency  is 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS  ANALYZED          67 

for  the  middle  50  per  cent  to  fall  (approximately)  between 
93  and  108. 

Three  important  conclusions  are  justified  by  the  above 
facts: — 

1.  Since  the  frequency  of  the  various  grades  of  intelli- 
gence decreases  gradually  and   at  no  point   abruptly  on 
each  side  of  the  median,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  no  defi- 
nite dividing  line  between  normality  and  feeble-minded- 
ness,  or  between  normality  and  genius.    Psychologically, 
the  mentally  defective  child  does  not  belong  to  a  distinct 
type,  nor  does  the  genius.    There  is  no  line  of  demarcation 
between  either  of  these  extremes  and  the  so-called  "  nor- 
mal "  child.  The  number  of  mentally  defective  individuals 
in  a  population  will  depend  upon  the  standard  arbitrarily 
set  up  as  to  what  constitutes  mental  deficiency.   Similarly 
for  genius.   It  is  exactly  as  we  should  undertake  to  classify 
all  people  into  the  three  groups:  abnormally  tall,  normally 
tall,  and  abnormally  short.1 

2.  The  common  opinion  that  extreme  deviations  below 
the  median  are  more  frequent  than  extreme  deviations  above 
the  median  seems  to  have  no  foundation  in  fact.    Among 
unselected   school   children,   at  least,  for  every  child   of 
any  given  degree  of  deficiency  there  is  another  child  as 
far  above  the  average  I  Q  as  the  former  is  below.    We 
have  shown  elsewhere  the  serious  consequences  of  neglect 
of  this  fact.2 

3.  The  traditional  view  that  variability  in  mental  traits 
becomes  more  marked  during  adolescence  is  here  contra- 
dicted, as  far  as  intelligence  is  concerned,  for  the  distribu- 
tion of  I  Q's  is  practically  the  same  at  each  age  from  5  to 
14.   For  example,  C-year-olds  differ  from  one  another  fully 
as  much  as  do  14-year-olds. 

1  See  Chapter  VI  for  discussion  of  the  significance  of  various  I  Q's. 
*  Sec  p.  12/. 


68        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

The  validity  of  the  intelligence  quotient.  The  facts 
presented  above  argue  strongly  for  the  validity  of  the  I  Q 
as  an  expression  of  a  child's  intelligence  status.  This  fol- 
lows necessarily  from  the  similar  nature  of  the  distributions 
at  the  various  ages.  The  inference  is  that  a  child's  I  Q, 
as  measured  by  this  scale,  remains  practically  constant. 
Re-tests  of  the  same  children  at  intervals  of  two  to  four 
years  support  the  inference.  Children  of  superior  intelli- 
gence do  not  deteriorate  as  they  get  older,  and  dull  chil- 
dren do  not  develop  average  intelligence.  Knowing  a  child's 
I  Q,  we  can  predict  with  a  high  degree  of  accuracy  the 
course  of  his  later  development. 

The  mental  age  of  a  subject  is  meaningless  if  considered 
apart  from  chronological  age.  It  is  only  the  ratio  of  retarda- 
tion or  acceleration  to  chronological  age  (that  is,  the  I  Q) 
which  has  significance. 

It  follows  also  that  if  the  I  Q  is  a  valid  expression  of  in- 
telligence, as  it  seems  to  be,  then  the  Binet-Simon  "  age- 
grade  method  "  becomes  transformed  automatically  into  a 
"  point-scale  method,"  if  one  wants  to  use  it  that  way. 
As  such  it  is  superior  to  any  other  point  scale  that  has 
been  proposed,  because  it  includes  a  larger  number  of 
tests  and  its  points  have  definite  meaning.1 

Sex  differences.  The  question  as  to  the  relative  intelli- 
gence of  the  sexes  is  one  of  perennial  interest  and  great  social 
importance.  The  ancient  hypothesis,  the  one  which  dates 
from  the  time  when  only  men  concerned  themselves  with 
scientific  hypotheses,  took  for  granted  the  superiority  of 
the  male.  With  the  development  of  individual  psychology, 
however,  it  was  soon  found  that  as  far  as  the  evidence  of 
mental  tests  can  be  trusted  the  average  intelligence  of 
women  and  girls  is  as  high  as  that  of  men  and  boys. 

1  For  discussion  of  the  supposed  advantages  of  the  "point-scale 
method,"  see  Yerkes  and  Bridges:  A  New  Point  Scale  for  Measuring 
Menial  Ability.  (Warwick  and  York,  1915.) 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS  ANALYZED          69 

If  we  accept  this  result  we  are  then  confronted  with  the 
difficult  problem  of  finding  an  explanation  for  the  fact  that 
so  few  of  those  who  have  acquired  eminence  in  the  various 
intellectual  fields  have  been  women.  Two  explanations  have 
been  proposed:  (1)  That  women  become  eminent  less  ofteri~~| 
than  men  simply  for  lack  of  opportunity  and  stimulus:  \ 
and  (2)  that  while  the  average  intelligence  of  the  sexes  is  the  v, 
same,  extreme  variations  may  be  more  common  in  males.  J 


1.00 


.80 


.CO 


.40 


5  a  1  8  9  10  11  12  13  14 

Boy»   1.00  .90         1.01          1.00          .98  1.03          .90  .97  .98          1.00 

GlrU  1.04  1.05        1.03         1.02         1.02          1.03         1.01          .99  3H          .90 

Pio.  9.    MEDIAN  I  Q  OF  457  BOYS  (UNBROKEN  LINE)  AND 
448  GIRLS   (DOTTED  LINE)  FOR  THE  AGES  5-14  YEARS 

It  is  pointed  out  that  not  only  are  there  more  eminent  men 
than  eminent  women,  but  that  statistics  also  show  a  pre- 
ponderance of  males  in  institutions  for  the  mentally  de- 
fective. Accordingly  it  is  often  said  that  women  are  grouped 
closely  about  the  average,  while  men  show  a  wider  range  of 
distribution. 

Many  hundreds  of  articles  and  books  of  popular  or 
quasi-scientific  nature  have  been  written  on  one  aspect 
or  another  of  this  question  of  sex  difference  in  intelligence; 
but  all  such  theoretical  discussions  taken  together  are  worth 


70        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

less  than  the  results  of  one  good  experiment.  Let  us  see 
what  our  1000  I  Q's  have  to  offer  toward  a  solution  of  the 
problem. 

^1.  When  the  I  Q's  of  the  boys  and  girls  were  treated 
separately  there  was  found  a  small  but  fairly  constant 
superiority  of  the  girls  up  to  the  age  of  13  years.  At  14, 
however,  the  curve  for  the  girls  dropped  below  that  for 
boys.  This  is  shown  in  Figure  3. 

L  The  supplementary  data,  including  the  teachers'  esti- 
mates of  intelligence  on  a  scale  of  five,  the  teachers'  judg- 
ments in  regard  to  the  quality  of  the  school  work,  and  rec- 

1  ords  showing  the  age-grade  distribution  of  the  sexes,  were 
all  sifted  for  evidence  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  apparent 
superiority  of  the  girls  age  for  age.  The  results  of  all  these 
lines  of  inquiry  support  the  tests  in  suggesting  that  the 
superiority  of  the  girls  is  probably  real  even  up  to  and  in- 
cluding age  14,  the  apparent  superiority  of  the  boys  at 
this  age  being  fully  accounted  for  by  the  more  frequent 
elimination  of  14-year-old  girls  from  the  grades  by  promo- 
tion to  the  high  school.1 

2.  However,  the  superiority  of  girls  over  boys  is  so  slight 
(amounting  at  most  ages  to  only  2  to  3  points  in  terms 
of  I  Q)  that  for  practical  purposes  it  would  seem  negligi- 
ble.   This  offers  no  support  to  the  opinion  expressed  by 
Yerkes  and  Bridges  that  "  at  certain  ages  serious  injus- 
tice will  be  done  individuals  by  evaluating  their  scores 
in  the  light  of  norms  which  do  not  take  account  of  sex 
differences." 

3.  Apart  from  the  small  superiority  of  girls,  the  dis- 
tribution of  intelligence  in  the  two  sexes  is  not  different. 

The  supposed  wider  variation  of  boys  is  not  found.  Girls 
do  not  group  themselves  about  the  median  more  closely 

1  It  will  be  remembered  that  this  series  of  tests  did  not  follow  up  and 
test  those  who  had  been  promoted  to  high  school. 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS  ANALYZED         71 

than  do  boys.  The  range  of  I  Q  including  the  middle  fifty 
per  cent  is  approximately  the  same  for  the  two  sexes.1 

4.  When  the  results  for  the  individual  tests  were  ex- 
amined, it  was  found  that  not  many  showed  very  extreme 
differences  as  to  the  per  cent  of  boys  and  girls  passing.  In 
a  few  cases,  however,  the  difference  was  rather  marked. 

The  boys  were  decidedly  better  in  arithmetical  reason- 
ing, giving  differences  between  a  president  and  a  king,  solv- 
ing the  form  board,  making  change,  reversing  hands  of 
clock,  finding  similarities,  and  solving  the  "  induction  test." 
The  girls  were  superior  in  drawing  designs  from  memory, 
aesthetic  comparison,  comparing  objects  from  memory,  an- 
swering the  "comprehension  questions,"  repeating  digits 
and  sentences,  tying  a  bow-knot,  and  finding  rhymes. 

Accordingly,  our  data,  which  for  the  most  part  agree 
with  the  results  of  others,  justify  the  conclusion  that  the 
intelligence  of  girls,  at  least  up  to  14  years,  does  not  differ 
materially  from  that  of  boys  either  as  regards  the  average 
level  or  the  range  of  distribution.  It  may  still  be  argued 
that  the  mental  development  of  boys  beyond  the  age  of 
14  years  lasts  longer  and  extends  farther  than  in  the  case 
of  girls,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  this  opinion  receives  lit- 
tle support  from  such  tests  as  have  been  made  on  men/ 
and  women  college  students. 

The  fact  that  so  few  women  have  attained  eminence 
may  be  due  to  wholly  extraneous  factors,  the  most  impor- 
tant of  which  are  the  following:  (1)  The  occupations  in 
which  it  is  possible  to  achieve  eminence  are  for  the  most 
part  only  now  beginning  to  open  their  doors  to  women. 
Women's  career  has  been  largely  that  of  home-making, 

1  For  an  extensive  summary  of  other  data  on  the  variability  of  the 
sexes  see  the  article  by  Leta  S.  Hollingworth,  in  The  American  Journal 
of  Sociology  (January,  1914),  pp.  510-30.  It  is  shown  that  the  Gndings  of 
others  support  the  conclusions  set  forth  above. 


72        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

(an  occupation  in  which  eminence,  in  the  strict  sense  of 
Ithe  word,  is  impossible.    (2)  Even  of  the  small  number  of 
omen  who  embark  upon  a  professional  career,  a  majority 
narry  and  thereafter  devote  a  fairly  large  proportion  of 
heir  energy  to  bearing  and  rearing  children.    (3)  Both  the 
raining  given  to  girls  and  the  general  atmosphere  in  which 
rhey  grow  up  are  unfavorable  to  the  inculcation  of  the  pro- 
(fessional  point  of  view,  and  as  a  result  women  are  noj^spurred 
Jon  by  deep-seated  motives  to  constant  and  strenuous  in- 
tellectual endeavor  as  men  are.    (4)  It  is  also  possible  that 
/the  emotional  traits  of  women  are  such  as  to  favor  the 
!  development  of  the  sentiments  at  the  expense  of  innate 
intellectual  endowment. 

Intelligence  of  the  different  social  classes.  Of  the  1000 
children,  492  were  classified  by  their  teachers  according  to 
social  class  into  the  following  five  groups:  very  inferior,  in- 
ferior, average,  superior,  and  very  superior.  A  comparative 
study  was  then  made  of  the  distribution  of  I  Q's  for  these 
different  groups.1 
The  data  may  be  summarized  as  follows :  — 

1.  The  median  I  Q  for  children  of  the  superior  social  class  is 
about  7  points  above,  and  that  of  the  inferior  social  class  about 
7  points  below,  the  median  I  Q  of  the  average  social  group.  This 
means  that  by  the  age  of  14  inferior  class  children  are  about  one 
year  below,  and  superior  class  children  one  year  above,  the  median 
mental  age  for  all  classes  taken  together. 

2.  That  the  children  of  the  superior  social  classes  make  a  better 
showing  in  the  tests  is  probably  due,  for  the  most  part,  to  a  su- 
periority in  original  endowment.  This  conclusion  is  supported  by 
five  supplementary  lines  of  evidence:    (a)  the  teachers'  rankings 
of  the  children  according  to  intelligence;   (6)  the  age-grade  pro- 
gress of  the  children;   (c)  the  quality  of  the  school  work;  (d)  the 
comparison  of  older  and  younger  children  as  regards  the  influence 

1  The  results  of  this  comparison  have  been  set  forth  in  detail  in  the 
monograph  of  source  material  and  some  of  the  conclusions  have  been  set 
forth  on  p.  HSff.  of  the  present  volume. 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS  ANALYZED          73 

of  social  environment;  and  (e)  the  study  of  individual  cases  of 
bright  and  dull  children  in  the  same  family. 

3.  In  order  to  facilitate  comparison,  it  is  advisable  to  express 
the  intelligence  of  children  of  all  social  classes  in  terms  of  the  same 
objective  scale  of  intelligence.   This  scale  should  be  based  on  the 
median  for  all  classes  taken  together. 

4.  As  regards  then*  responses  to  individual  tests,  our  children 
of  a  given  social  class  were  not  distinguishable  from  children  of  the 
same  intelligence  in  any  other  social  class. 

The  relation  of  the  I  Q  to  the  quality  of  the  child's 
school  work.  The  school  work  of  504  children  was  graded 
by  the  teachers  on  a  scale  of  five  grades:  very  inferior, 
inferior,  average,  superior,  and  very  superior.  When  this 
grouping  was  compared  with  that  made  on  the  basis  of 
I  Q,  fairly  close  agreement  was  found.  However,  in  about 
one  case  out  of  ten  there  was  rather  serious  disagreement; 
a  child,  for  example,  would  be  rated  as  doing  average 
school  work  when  his  I  Q  would  place  him  in  the  very 
inferior  intelligence  group. 

When  the  data  were  searched  for  explanations  of  such 
disagreements  it  was  found  that  most  of  them  were  plainly 
due  to  the  failure  of  teachers  to  take  into  account  the  age 
of  the  child  when  grading  the  quality  of  his  school  work.1 
When  allowance  was  made  for  this  tendency  there  were  no 
disagreements  which  justified  any  serious  suspicion  as  to 
the  accuracy  of  the  intelligence  scale.  Minor  disagree- 
ments may,  of  course,  be  disregarded,  since  the  quality  of 
school  work  depends  in  part  on  other  factors  than  intelli- 
gence, such  as  industry,  health,  regularity  of  attendance, 
quality  of  instruction,  etc. 

The  relation  between  I  Q  and  grade  progress.    This 

comparison,  which  was  made  for  the  entire  1000  children, 

showed  a  fairly  high  correlation,  but  also  some  astonishing 

disagreements.    Nine-year  intelligence  was  found  all  the 

1  Seep.  24 /. 


74        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

way  from  grade  1  to  grade  7,  inclusive;  10-year  intelligence 
all  the  way  from  grade  2  to  grade  7;  and  12-year  intelligence 
all  the  way  from  grade  3  to  grade  8.  Plainly  the  school's 
efforts  at  grading  fail  to  give  homogeneous  groups  of  chil- 
dren as  regards  mental  ability.  On  the  whole,  the  grade 
location  of  the  children  did  not  fit  their  mental  ages  much 
better  than  it  did  their  chronological  ages. 

When  the  data  were  examined,  it  was  found  that  prac- 
tically every  child  whose  grade  failed  to  correspond  fairly 
closely  with  his  mental  age  was  either  exceptionally  bright 
or  exceptionally  dull.  Those  who  tested  between  96  and 
105  I  Q  were  never  seriously  misplaced  in  school.  The 
very  dull  children,  however,  were  usually  located  from  one 
to  three  grades  above  where  they  belonged  by  mental  age, 
and  the  duller  the  child  the  more  serious,  as  a  rule,  was  the 
misplacement.  On  the  other  hand,  the  very  bright  children 
were  nearly  always  located  from  one  to  three  grades  below 
where  they  belonged  by  mental  age,  and  the  brighter  the 
child  the  more  serious  the  school's  mistake.  The  child  of 
10-year  mental  age  in  the  second  grade,  for  example,  is 
almost  certain  to  be  about  7  or  8  years  old;  the  child  of  10- 
year  intelligence  in  the  sixth  grade  is  almost  certain  to  be 
13  to  15  years  of  age. 

All  this  is  due  to  one  fact,  and  one  alone:  the  school  tends 
to  promote  children  by  age  rather  than  ability.  The  bright 
children  are  held  back,  while  the  dull  children  are  promoted 
beyond  their  mental  ability.  The  retardation  problem  is 
exactly  the  reverse  of  what  we  have  thought  it  to  be.  It 
is  the  bright  children  who  are  retarded,  and  the  dull  chil- 
dren who  are  accelerated. 

The  remedy  is  to  be  sought  in  differentiated  courses 
(special  classes)  for  both  kinds  of  mentally  exceptional 
children.  Just  as  many  special  classes  are  needed  for  su- 
perior children  as  for  the  inferior.  The  social  consequences 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS  ANALYZED          75 

of  suitable  educational  advantages  for  children  of  superior 
ability  would  no  doubt  greatly  exceed  anything  that  could 
possibly  result  from  the  special  instruction  of  dullards  and 
border-line  cases.1 

Special  study  of  the  I  Q's  between  70  and  79  revealed  the 
fact  that  a  child  of  this  grade  of  intelligence  never  does 
satisfactory  work  in  the  grade  where  he  belongs  by  chrono- 
logical age.  By  the  time  he  has  attended  school  four  or  five 
years,  such  a  child  is  usually  found  doing  "  very  inferior  " 
to  "  average  "  work  in  a  grade  from  two  to  four  years 
below  his  age. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  child  with  an  I  Q  of  120  or  above 
is  almost  never  found  below  the  grade  for  his  chronological 
age,  and  occasionally  he  is  one  or  two  grades  above.  Wher- 
ever located,  his  work  is  always  "  superior  "  or  "  very 
superior,"  and  the  evidence  suggests  strongly  that  it 
would  probably  remain  so  even  if  extra  promotions  were 
granted. 

Correlation  between  I  Q  and  the  teachers'  estimates  of 
the  children's  intelligence.  By  the  Pearson  formula  the 
correlation  found  between  the  I  Q's  and  the  teachers'  rank- 
ings on  a  scale  of  five  was  .48.  This  is  about  what  others 
have  found,  and  is  both  high  enough  and  low  enough  to 
be  significant.  That  it  is  moderately  high  in  so  far  cor- 
roborates the  tests.  That  it  is  not  higher  means  that  either 
the  teachers  or  the  tests  have  made  a  good  many  mis- 
takes. 

When  the  data  were  searched  for  evidence  on  this  point, 
it  was  found,  as  we  have  shown  in  Chapter  II,  that  the  fault 
was  plainly  on  the  part  of  the  teachers.  The  serious  mis- 
takes were  nearly  all  made  with  children  who  were  either 
over  age  or  under  age  for  their  grade,  mostly  the  former. 

1  Sec  Chapter  VI  for  further  discussion  of  the  school  progress  possible  to 
children  of  various  I  Q's. 


76        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

In  estimating  children's  intelligence,  just  as  in  grading  their 
school  success,  the  teachers  often  failed  to  take  account  of 
the  age  factor.  For  example,  the  child  whose  mental  age 
was,  say,  two  years  below  normal,  and  who  was  enrolled  in 
a  class  with  children  about  two  years  younger  than  himself, 
was  often  graded  "  average  "  in  intelligence. 

The  tendency  of  teachers  is  to  estimate  a  child's  intelli- 
gence according  to  the  quality  of  his  school  work  in  the 
grade  where  he  happens  to  be  located.  This  results  in  over- 
estimating the  intelligence  of  older,  retarded  children, 
and  underestimating  the  intelligence  of  the  younger,  ad- 
vanced children.  The  disagreements  between  the  tests  and 
the  teachers'  estimates  are  thus  found,  when  analyzed,  to 
confirm  the  validity  of  the  test  method  rather  than  to 
bring  it  under  suspicion. 

The  validity  of  the  individual  tests.  The  validity  of 
each  test  was  checked  up  by  measuring  it  against  the  scale 
as  a  whole  in  the  manner  described  on  p.  55.  For  example, 
if  10-year-old  children  having  11-year  intelligence  do  not 
succeed  with  a  given  test  any  better  than  10-year-old  chil- 
dren who  have  9-year  intelligence,  then  either  this  test 
must  be  accepted  as  valid  or  the  scale  as  a  whole  must  be 
rejected.  Since  we  know,  however,  that  the  scale  as  a 
whole  has  at  least  a  reasonably  high  degree  of  reliability, 
this  method  becomes  a  sure  and  ready  means  of  judging  the 
worth  of  a  test. 

When  the  tests  were  tried  out  in  this  way  it  was  found  that 
some  of  those  which  have  been  most  criticized  have  in  real- 
ity a  high  correlation  with  intelligence.  Among  these  are 
naming  the  days  of  the  week,  giving  the  value  of  stamps, 
counting  thirteen  pennies,  giving  differences  between  presi- 
dent and  king,  finding  rhymes,  giving  age,  distinguishing 
right  and  left,  and  interpretation  of  pictures.  Others  hav- 
ing a  high  reliability  are  the  vocabulary  tests,  arithmetical 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENTS  ANALYZED          77 

reasoning,  giving  differences,  copying  a  diamond,  giving 
date,  repeating  digits  in  reverse  order,  interpretation  of 
fables,  the  dissected  sentence  test,  naming  sixty  words, 
finding  omissions  in  pictures,  and  recognizing  absurdities. 

Among  the  somewhat  less  satisfactory  tests  are  the  fol- 
lowing: repeating  digits  (direct  order),  naming  coins,  dis- 
tinguishing forenoon  and  afternoon,  defining  in  terms  of 
use,  drawing  designs  from  memory,  and  aesthetic  compari- 
son. Binet's  "line  suggestion  "  test  correlated  so  little 
with  intelligence  that  it  had  to  be  thrown  out.  The  same 
was  also  true  of  two  of  the  new  tests  which  we  had  added 
to  the  series  for  try-out. 

Tests  showing  a  medium  correlation  with  the  scale  as 
a  whole  include  arranging  weights,  executing  three  com- 
missions, naming  colors,  giving  number  of  fingers,  describ- 
ing pictures,  naming  the  months,  making  change,  giving 
superior  definitions,  finding  similarities,  reading  for  mem- 
ories, reversing  hands  of  clock,  defining  abstract  words, 
problems  of  fact,  bow-knot,  induction  test,  and  compre- 
hension questions. 

A  test  which  makes  a  good  showing  on  this  criterion  of 
agreement  with  the  scale  as  a  whole  becomes  immune  to 
theoretical  criticisms.  Whatever  it  appears  to  be  from 
mere  inspection,  it  is  a  real  measure  of  intelligence.  Hence- 
forth it  stands  or  falls  with  the  scale  as  a  whole. 

The  reader  will  understand,  of  course,  that  no  single 
test  used  alone  will  determine  accurately  the  general  level 
of  intelligence.  A  great  many  tests  are  required;  and  for 
two  reasons:  (1)  because  intelligence  has  many  aspects; 
and  (2)  in  order  to  overcome  the  accidental  influences  of 
training  or  environment.  If  many  tests  are  used  no  one  of 
them  need  show  more  than  a  moderately  high  correlation 
with  the  scale  as  a  whole.  As  stated  by  Binet,  "  Let  the 
tests  be  rough,  if  there  are  only  enough  of  them." 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  VARIOUS  INTELLIGENCE 
QUOTIENTS 

Frequency  of  different  degrees  of  intelligence.  Before 
we  can  interpret  the  results  of  an  examination  it  is  neces- 
sary to  know  how  frequently  an  I  Q  of  the  size  found  occurs 
among  unselected  children.  Our  tests  of  1000  unselected 
children  enable  us  to  answer  this  question  with  some  degree 
of  definiteness.  A  study  of  these  1000  I  Q's  shows  the  fol- 
lowing significant  facts:  — 

The  lowest    1  %  go  to  70  or  below,  the  highest  1  %  reach  130  or  above 

2  %  "  "  73  "      "         "        "  2  %  128 

3  %  "  "  76  "      "         "        "  3  %  125 
5  %  "  "  78  "      "         "        "  5  %  122 

10     %  "  "  85  "  "  "  "  10     %  116 

15     %  "  "  88  "  "  "  "  15     %  113 

20     %  "  "  91  "  "  "  "  20     %  110 

25     %  "  "  92  "  "  "  "  25     %  108 

33Ji%  "  "  95  "  "  "  "  33^%  106 

Or,  to  put  some  of  the  above  facts  in  another  form:  — 

The  child  reaching  110  is  equaled  or  excelled  by  20  out  of  100 

"       "  "       (about)  115  "        "        "        "        "    10    "    "     " 

"       "  "  "       125  "        "        "        "        "     3    "    "     " 

"       "  "  "       130  "        "        "        "        "     1    "    "     " 

Conversely,  we  may  say  regarding  the  subnormals  that :  — 

The  child  testing  at  (about)  90  is  equaled  or  excelled  by  80  out  of  100 
<<       «         „       ««        ««       85  «.        «        «         «        «.   9Q    <«    ««     <« 

"       "         "       "        "       75  "        "        "         "        "  97    "    "     " 

«  «  «  i«  «•  7Q     «  «  ««  «  «        99  «         ««  « 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       79 

Classification  of  intelligence  quotients.  What  do  the 
above  I  Q's  imply  in  such  terms  as  feeble-mindedness, 
border-line  intelligence,  dullness,  normality,  superior  in- 
telligence, genius,  etc.?/  When  we  use  these  terms  two  facts 
must  be  borne  in  mind:  (1)  That  the  boundary  lines  be- 
tween such  groups  are  absolutely  arbitrary,  a  matter  of 
definition  only;  and  (2)  that  the  individuals  comprising  one 
of  the  groups  do  not  make  up  a  homogeneous  type. 

Nevertheless,  since  terms  like  the  above  are  convenient 
and  will  probably  continue  to  be  used,  it  is  desirable  to 
give  them  as  much  definiteness  as  possible.  On  the  basis 
of  the  tests  we  have  made,  including  many  cases  of  all 
grades  of  intelligence,  the  following  suggestions  are  offered 
for  the  classification  of  intelligence  quotients:  — 

/  Q  Classification 

Above  140  ....  "Near"  genius  or  genius. 

120-140  ....  Very  superior  intelligence. 

110-120  ....  Superior  intelligence. 

90-110  ....  Normal,  or  average,  intelligence. 

80-  90  ....  Dullness,  rarely  classifiable  as  feeble-mindedness. 

70-  80  ....  Border-line  deficiency,  sometimes  classifiable  as  dull- 
ness, often  as  feeble-mindedness. 

Below  70  ....  Definite  feeble-mindedness. 

Of  the  feeble-minded,  those  between  50  and  70  I  Q  in- 
clude most  of  the  morons  (high,  middle,  and  low),  those 
between  20  or  25  and  50  are  ordinarily  to  be  classed  as 
imbeciles,  and  those  below  20  or  25  as  idiots.  According 
to  this  classification  the  adult  idiot  would  range  up  to  about 
3-year  intelligence  as  the  limit,  the  adult  imbecile  would  have 
a  mental  level  between  3  and  7  years,  and  the  adult  moron 
would  range  from  about  7-year  to  11-yeur  intelligence. 

It  should  be  added,  however,  that  the  classification  of 
I  Q's  for  the  various  sub-grades  of  feeble-mindedness  is 
not  very  secure,  for  the  reason  that  the  exact  curves  of 
mental  growth  have  not  been  worked  out  for  such  grades. 


80        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

As  far  as  the  public  schools  are  concerned  this  does  not 
greatly  matter,  as  they  never  enroll  idiots  and  very  rarely 
even  the  high-grade  imbecile.  School  defectives  are  prac- 
tically all  of  the  moron  and  border-line  grades,  and  these 
it  is  important  teachers  should  be  able  to  recognize.  The 
following  discussions  and  illustrative  cases  will  perhaps 
give  a  fairly  definite  idea  of  the  significance  of  various  grades 
of  intelligence.1 

Feeble-mindedness  (rarely  above  75  I  Q.)  There  are 
innumerable  grades  of  mental  deficiency  ranging  from 
somewhat  below  average  intelligence  to  profound  idiocy. 
In  the  literal  sense  every  individual  below  the  average  is 
more  or  less  mentally  weak  or  feeble.  Only  a  relatively 
small  proportion  of  these,  however,  are  technically  known 
as  feeble-minded.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  set  forth  the 
criterion  as  to  what  constitutes  a  feeble-mindedness  in  the 
commonly  accepted  sense  of  that  word. 

The  definition  in  most  general  use  is  the  one  framed  by 
the  Royal  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  of  London, 
and  adopted  by  the  English  Royal  Commission  on  Mental 
Deficiency.  It  is  substantially  as  follows :  — 

A  feeble-minded  person  is  one  who  is  incapable,  because 
of  mental  defect  existing  from  birth  or  from  an  early  age, 
(a)  of  competing  on  equal  terms  with  his  normal  fellows;  or 
(6)  of  managing  himself  or  his  affairs  with  ordinary  prudence. 

Two  things  are  to  be  noted  in  regard  to  this  definition: 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  stated  in  terms  of  social  and  in- 
dustrial efficiency.  Such  efficiency,  however,  depends  not 
merely  on  the  degree  of  intelligence,  but  also  on  emotional, 
moral,  physical,  and  social  traits  as  well.  This  explains 
why  some  individuals  with  I  Q  somewhat  below  75  can 

1  The  clinical  descriptions  to  be  given  are  not  complete  and  are  designed 
merely  to  aid  the  examiner  in  understanding  the  significance  of  intelligence 
quotients  found. 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       81 

hardly  be  classed  as  feeble-minded  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
the  term,  while  others  with  I  Q  a  little  above  75  could 
hardly  be  classified  in  any  other  group. 

In  the  second  place,  the  criterion  set  up  by  the  definition 
is  not  very  definite  because  of  the  vague  meaning  of  the 
expression  "  ordinary  prudence."  Even  the  expression 
"  competing  on  equal  terms  "  cannot  be  taken  literally, 
else  it  would  include  also  those  who  are  merely  dull.  It 
is  the  second  part  of  the  definition  that  more  nearly  ex- 
presses the  popular  criterion,  for  as  long  as  an  individual 
manages  his  affairs  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  self-supporting, 
and  in  such  a  way  as  to  avoid  becoming  a  nuisance  or  burden 
to  his  fellowmen,  he  escapes  the  institutions  for  defectives 
and  may  pass  for  normal. 

The  most  serious  defect  of  the  definition  comes  from  the 
lax  interpretation  of  the  term  "  ordinary  prudence,"  etc. 
The  popular  standard  is  so  low  that  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  high-grade  defectives  escape  identification  as  such. 
Moreover,  there  are  many  grades  of  severity  in  social  and 
industrial  competition.  For  example,  most  of  the  members 
of  such  families  as  the  Jukes,  the  Nams,  the  Hill  Folk,  and 
the  Kallikaks  are  able  to  pass  as  normal  in  their  own 
crude  environment,  but  when  compelled  to  compete  with 
average  American  stock  their  deficiency  becomes  evident. 
It  is  therefore  necessary  to  supplement  the  social  criterion 
with  a  more  strictly  psychological  one. 

For  this  purpose  there  is  nothing  else  as  significant  as 
the  I  Q.  All  who  test  below  70  I  Q  by  the  Stanford  revision 
of  the  Binet-Simon  scale  should  be  considered  feeble-minded, 
and  it  is  an  open  question  whether  it  would  not  be  justifiable 
to  consider  75  I  Q  as  the  lower  limit  of  "  normal  "  intelli- 
gence. Certainly  a  large  proportion  falling  between  70  and 
75  can  hardly  be  classed  as  other  than  feeble-minded,  even 
according  to  the  social  criterion. 


82        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Examples  of  feeble-minded  school  children 

,  F.  C.  Boy,  age  8-6;  mental  age  J^-2;  I Q  approximately  50.  From 
a  very  superior  home.  Has  had  the  best  medical  care  and  other 
attention.  Attended  a  private  kindergarten  until  rejected  because 
he  required  so  much  of  the  teacher's  time  and  appeared  uneducable. 
Will  probably  develop  to  about  the  6-  or  7-year  mental  level. 
High  grade  imbecile.  Has  since  been  committed  to  a  state  insti- 
tution. Cases  as  low  as  F.  C.  very  rarely  get  into  the  public  schools. 

R.  W.  Boy,  age  13-10;  mental  age  7-6;  I  Q  approximately  55. 
Home  excellent.  Is  pubescent.  Because  of  age  and  maturity  has 


Fio.  4.    DIAMOND  DRAWN  BY  R.  W.,  AGE  18-10;  MENTAL  AGE  7-6 

been  promoted  to  the  third  grade,  though  he  can  hardly  do  the 
work  of  the  second.  Has  attended  school  more  than  six  years. 
Will  probably  never  develop  much  if  any  beyond  8  years,  and  will 
never  be  self-supporting.  Low-grade  moron. 

M .  S.  Girl,  age  7-6;  mental  age  4~6;  I  Q  60.  Father  a  gardener, 
home  conditions  and  medical  attention  fair.  Has  twice  attempted 
first  grade,  but  without  learning  to  read  more  than  a  few  words. 
In  each  case  teacher  requested  parents  to  withdraw  her.  "Takes" 
things.  Is  considered  "foolish"  by  the  other  children.  Will  prob- 
ably never  develop  beyond  a  mental  level  of  8  years. 

R.  M.  Boy,  age  15;  mental  age  9;  I  Q  60.  Decidedly  superior 
home  environment  and  care.  After  attending  school  eight  years 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       83 

is  in  fifth  grade,  though  he  cannot  do  the  work  of  the  fourth  grade. 
Parents  unable  to  teach  him  to  respect  property.  Boys  torment 
him  and  make  his  life  miserable.  At  middle-moron  level  and  has 
probably  about  reached  the  limit  of  his  development.  Has  since 
been  committed  to  a  state  institution. 


Fio.  5.    WRITING  FROM  DICTATION.    R.  M.,  AGE  15;  MENTAL  AGE  9  ! 

S.  M.  Girl,  age  19-2;  mental  age  10;  I  Q  approximately  65  (not 
counting  age  beyond  16).  From  very  superior  family.  Has  attended 
public  and  private  schools  twelve  years  and  has  been  promoted  to 
seventh  grade,  where  she  cannot  do  the  work.  Appears  docile  and 
childlike,  but  is  subject  to  spells  of  disobedience  and  stubbornness. 
Did  not  walk  until  4  years  old.  Plays  with  young  children.  Sus- 
ceptible to  attention  from  men  and  has  to  be  constantly  guarded. 
Writing  excellent,  knows  the  number  combinations,  but  missed  all 
the  absurdities  and  has  the  vocabulary  of  an  average  10-year-old. 
The  type  from  which  prostitutes  often  come. 

R.  H.  Boy,  age  14;  mental  age  8-4;  I  Q  65.  Father  Irish,  mother 
Spanish.  Family  comfortable  and  home  care  average.  Has  at- 
tended school  eight  years  and  is  unable  to  do  fourth-grade  work 
satisfactorily.  Health  excellent  and  attendance  regular.  Reads  in 
fourth  reader  without  expression  and  with  little  comprehension  of 
what  is  read.  Fair  skill  in  number  combinations.  Writing  and 
drawing  very  poor.  Cannot  use  a  ruler.  Has  no  conception  of  an 
inch. 

R.  H.  is  described  as  high-tempered,  irritable,  lacking  in  physi- 
cal activity,  clumsy,  and  unsteady.  Plays  little.  Just  "stands 
around."  Indifferent  to  praise  or  blame,  has  little  sense  of  duty, 
plays  underhand  tricks.  Is  slow,  absent-minded,  easily  confused, 
in  thought,  never  shows  appreciation  or  interest.  So  apathetic 
that  he  does  not  hear  commands.  Voice  droning.  Speech  poor  in 
colloquial  expressions. 


84        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Three  years  later,  at  age  of  17,  was  in  a  special  class  attempting 
sixth-grade  work.  Reported  as  doing  "absolutely  nothing"  in  that 
grade.  Still  sullen,  indifferent,  and  slow  in  grasping  directions,  and 
lacking  in  play  interests.  "No  apperception  of  anything,  but  has 
mastered  such  mechanical  things  as  reading  (calling  the  words) 
and  the  fundamentals  in  arithmetic." 

In  school  work,  moral  traits,  and  out-of-school  behavior  R.  H. 
shows  himself  to  be  a  typical  case  of  moron  deficiency. 

7.  M.  Girl,  age  11^-2;  mental  age  9;  I Q  approximately  65.  Father 
a  laborer.  Does  unsatisfactory  work  in  fourth  grade.  Plays  with 

little  girls.  A  menace  to  the  morals 
of  the  school  because  of  her  sex  in- 
terests and  lack  of  self-restraint. 
Rather  good-looking  if  one  does 
not  hunt  for  appearances  of  intel- 
ligence. Mental  reactions  intoler- 
ably slow.  Will  develop  but  little 
further  and  will  always  pass  as 
feeble-minded  in  any  but  the  very 
lowest  social  environment. 

G.  V.    Boy,  age  10;  mental  age 

FIG.  6.  BALL  AND  FIELD  TEST.  6~4;  I  Q  65.  Father  Spanish, 
I.  M.,  AGE  14-2;  MENTAL  AGE  9  mother  English.  Family  poor  but 

fairly  respectable.    Brothers   and 

sisters  all  retarded.  In  high  first  grade.  Work  all  very  poor  except 
writing,  drawing,  and  hand  work,  in  all  of  which  he  excels.  Is  quiet 
and  inactive,  lacks  self-confidence,  and  plays  little.  Mentally 
slow,  inert,  "thick,"  and  inattentive.  Health  fair. 

Three  years  later  G.  V.  was  in  the  low  third  grade  and  still 
doing  extremely  poor  work  in  everything  except  manual  training, 
drawing,  and  writing.  Is  not  likely  ever  to  go  beyond  the  fourth 
or  fifth  grade  however  long  he  remains  in  school. 

V.  J.  Girl,  age  11-6;  mental  age  8;  I  Q  70.  Has  been  tested 
three  times  in  the  last  five  years,  always  with  approximately  the 
same  result  in  terms  of  I  Q.  Home  fair  to  inferior.  Has  been  in  a 
special  class  two  years  and  in  school  altogether  nearly  six  years. 
Is  barely  able  to  do  third-grade  work.  Her  feeble-mindedness  is 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       85 

& 

recognized  by  teachers  and  by  other  pupils.    Belongs  at  about 
middle-moron  to  high-moron  level. 

A.  W.  Boy,  age  9-4;  mental  age  7;  I Q  75.  A  year  and  a  half  ago 
he  tested  at  6-2.  From  superior  family,  brothers  of  very  superior 
intelligence.  In  school  three 
years  and  has  made  about  a 
grade  and  a  half.  Has  higher 
I   Q   than  V.  J.  described 
above,  but  his  deficiency  is 
fully  as  evident.    Is  gener- 
ally recognized  as  mentally 
defective.    Slyly  abstracted 
one  of  the  pennies  used  in 
the  test  and  slipped  it  in-      Fra-  1-  DIAMOND  DRAWN  BY  A.  w. 
to  his  pocket.    Has  caused 

much  trouble  at  school  by  puncturing  bicycle  tires.  High-grade 
moron. 

A.  C.  Boy,  age  12;  mental  age  8-5;  I  Q  70.  From  Portuguese 
family  of  ten  children.  Has  a  feeble-minded  brother.  Parents  in 
comfortable  circumstances  and  respectable.  A.  C.  has  attended 
school  regularly  since  he  was  6  years  old.  Trying  unsuccessfully  to 
do  the  work  of  the  fourth  grade.  Reads  poorly  in  the  third  reader. 
Hesitates,  repeats,  miscalls  words,  and  never  gets  the  thought. 
Writes  about  like  a  first-grade  pupil.  Cannot  solve  such  simple 
problems  as  "How  many  marbles  can  you  buy  for  ten  cents  if  one 
marble  costs  five  cents?"  even  when  he  has  marbles  and  money  in 
his  hands.  Described  by  teacher  as  "mentally  slow  and  inert,  in- 
attentive, easily  distracted,  memory  poor,  ideas  vague  and  often 
absurd,  does  not  appreciate  stories,  slow  at  comprehending  com- 
mands." Is  also  described  as  "unruly,  boisterous,  disobedient, 
stubborn,  and  lacking  sense  of  propriety.  Tattles." 

Three  years  later,  at  age  of  15,  was  in  a  special  class  and  was 
little  if  any  improved.  He  had,  however,  learned  the  mechanics  of 
reading  and  had  mastered  the  number  combinations.  Deficiencies 
described  as  "of  wide  range."  Conduct,  however,  had  improved. 
Was  "working  hard  to  get  on." 

A.  C.  must  be  considered  definitely  feeble-minded. 

II.  S.  Boy,  age  11;  mental  age  8-3;  I  Q  approximately  75.  At  8 
years  tested  at  6.  Parents  highly  educated,  father  a  scholar. 


86        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Brother  and  sister  of  very  superior  intelligence.  Started  to  school 
at  7,  but  was  withdrawn  because  of  lack  of  progress.  Started  again 
at  8  and  is  now  doing  poor  work  in  the  second  grade.  Weakly  and 
nervous.  Painfully  aware  of  his  inability  to  learn.  During  the  test 
keeps  saying,  "I  tried  anyway,"  "It's  all  I  can  do  if  I  try  my  best, 
ain't  it?"  etc.  Regarded  defective  by  other  children.  Will  prob- 
ably never  be  able  to  do  work  beyond  the  fourth  or  fifth  grade  and 
is  not  likely  to  develop  above  the  11-year  level,  if  as  high. 


FIG.  8.    DRAWING  DESIGNS  FROM  MEMORY.    H.  S.,  AGE  11; 
MENTAL  AGE  8-3 

/.  S.  Boy,  age  9-6;  mental  age  7;  I  Q  75.  German  parentage. 
Started  to  school  at  6.  Now  in  low  second  grade  and  unable  to  do 
the  work.  Health  good.  Inattentive,  mentally  slow  and  inert, 
easily  distracted,  speech  is  monotone.  Equally  poor  in  reading, 
writing,  and  numbers.  I.  S.  is  described  as  quiet,  sullen,  indifferent, 
lazy,  and  stubborn.  Plays  little. 

Three  years  later  had  advanced  from  low  second  to  low  fourth 
grade,  but  was  as  poor  as  ever  in  his  school  work.  "Miscalls  the 
simplest  words."  Moral  traits  unsatisfactory.  May  reach  sixth  or 
seventh  grade  if  he  remains  in  school  long  enough. 

I.  S.  learned  to  walk  at  2  years  and  to  talk  at  3. 

The  above  are  cases  of  such  marked  deficiency  that  there 
could  be  no  disagreement  among  competent  judges  in 
classifying  them  in  the  group  of  "  feeble-minded."  All 
are  definitely  institutional  cases.  It  is  a  matter  of  record, 
however,  that  one  of  the  cases,  H.  S.,  was  diagnosed  by  a 
physician  (without  test)  as  "  backward  but  not  a  defec- 
tive," and  with  the  added  encouragement  that  "  the  back- 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       87 

wardness  will  be  outgrown."  Of  course  the  reverse  is  the 
case;  the  deficiency  is  becoming  more  and  more  apparent 
as  the  boy  approaches  the  age  where  more  is  expected  of 
him. 

In  at  least  three  of  the  above  cases  (S.  M.,  I.  S.,  and 
I.  M.)  the  teachers  had  not  identified  the  backwardness 
as  feeble-mindedness.  Not  far  from  2  children  out  of  100, 
or  20  out  of  1000,  in  the  average  public  school  are  as  defec- 
tive as  some  of  those  just  described.  Teachers  get  so  ac- 
customed to  seeing  a  few  of  them  in  every  group  of  200  or 
300  pupils  that  they  are  likely  to  regard  them  as  merely 
dull,  —  "  dreadfully  dull,"  of  course,  —  but  not  defective. 

Children  like  these,  for  then*  own  good  and  that  of  other 
pupils,  should  be  kept  out  of  the  regular  classes.  They  will 
rarely  be  equal  to  the  work  of  the  fifth  grade,  however  long 
they  attend  school.  They  will  make  a  little  progress  in  a 
well-managed  special  class,  but  with  the  approach  of  adoles- 
cence, at  latest,  the  State  should  take  them  into  custodial 
care  for  its  own  protection. 

Border-line  cases  (usually  between  70  and  80  I  Q). 
The  border-line  cases  are  those  which  fall  near  the  bound- 
ary between  that  grade  of  mental  deficiency  which  will  be 
generally  recognized  as  such  and  the  higher  group  usually 
classed  as  normal  but  dull.  They  are  the  doubtful  cases,  the 
ones  we  are  always  trying  (rarely  with  success)  to  restore 
to  normality. 

It  must  be  emphasized,  however,  that  this  doubtful 
group  is  not  marked  off  by  definite  I  Q  limits.  Some  chil- 
dren with  I  Q  as  high  as  75  or  even  80  will  have  to  be 
classified  as  feeble-minded;  some  as  low  as  70  I  Q  may  be 
so  well  endowed  in  other  mental  traits  that  they  may 
manage  as  adults  to  get  along  fairly  well  in  a  simple  en- 
vironment. The  ability  to  compete  with  one's  fellows  in 
the  social  and  industrial  world  does  not  depend  upon  in- 


88        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

telligence  alone.  Such  factors  as  moral  traits,  industry, 
environment  to  be  encountered,  personal  appearance,  and 
influential  relatives  are  also  involved.  Two  children  classi- 
fied above  as  feeble-minded  had  an  I  Q  as  high  as  75.  In 
these  cases  the  emotional,  moral,  or  physical  qualities  were 
so  defective  as  to  render  a  normal  social  life  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. This  is  occasionally  true  even  with  an  I  Q  as  high  as 
80.  Some  of  the  border-line  cases,  with  even  less  intelli- 
gence, may  be  so  well  endowed  in  other  mental  traits  that 
they  are  capable  of  becoming  dependable  unskilled  laborers, 
and  of  supporting  a  family  after  a  fashion. 

Examples  of  border-line  deficiency 

S.  F.  Girl,  age  17;  mental  age  11-6;  I  Q  approximately  72  (dis- 
regarding age  above  16  years).  Father  intelligent;  mother  probably 

high-grade  defective.  Lives  in  a  good 
home  with  aunt,  who  is  a  woman  of 
good  sense  and  skillful  in  her  manage- 
ment of  the  girl.  S.  F.  has  attended 
excellent  schools  for  eleven  years  and 
has  recently  been  promoted  to  the 
seventh  grade.  The  teacher  admits, 
however,  that  she  cannot  do  the  work 
of  that  grade,  but  says,  "I  have  n't 
the  heart  to  let  her  fail  in  the  sixth 
grade  for  the  third  time."  She  studies 
very  hard  and  says  she  wants  to  be- 
come a  teacher!  At  the  time  the  test 
Fio.  9.  BALL  AND  FIELD  TEST.  was  made  she  was  actually  studying 
S.  F.,  AGE  17;  MENTAL  AGE  n-6  her  books  from  two  to  three  hours 

daily  at  home.    The  aunt,  who  is 

very  intelligent,  had  never  thought  of  this  girl  as  feeble-minded, 
and  had  suffered  much  concern  and  humiliation  because  of  her 
inability  to  teach  her  to  conduct  herself  properly  toward  men  and 
not  to  appropriate  other  people's  property. 

S.  F.  is  ordinarily  docile,  but  is  subject  to  fits  of  anger  and  ob- 
stinacy. She  finally  determined  to  leave  her  home,  threatening  to 
take  up  with  a  man  unless  allowed  to  work  elsewhere.  Since  then 
she  has  been  tried  out  in  several  families,  but  after  a  little  while  in 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE         89 

a  place  she  flies  into  a  rage  and  leaves.   She  is  a  fairly  capable 
houseworker  when  she  tries. 

This  young  woman  is  feeble-minded  and  should  be  classed  as 
such.  She  is  listed  here  with  the  border-line  cases  simply  for  the 
reason  that  she  belongs  to  a  group  whose  mental  deficiency  is 
almost  never  recognized  without  the  aid  of  a  psychological  test. 
Probably  no  physician  could  be  found  who  would  diagnose  the  case, 
on  the  basis  of  a  medical  examination  alone,  as  one  of  feeble- 
mindedness. 

F.  H.  Boy,  age  16-6;  mental  age  11-5;  I  Q  approximately  72 
(disregarding  age  above  16  years).  Tested  for  three  successive  years 
without  change  of  more  than  four  points  in  I  Q.  Father  a  laborer, 
dull,  subject  to  fits  of  rage,  and  beats  the  boy.  Mother  not  far  from 
border-line.  F.  H.  has  always  had  the  best  of  school  advantages 
and  has  been  promoted  to  the  seventh  grade.  Is  really  about  equal 
to  fifth-grade  work.  Fairly  rapid  and  accurate  in  number  com- 
binations, but  cannot  solve  arithmetical  problems  which  require 
any  reasoning.  Reads  with  reasonable  fluency,  but  with  little  un- 
derstanding. Appears  exceedingly  good-natured,  but  was  once 
suspended  from  school  for  hurling  bricks  at  a  fellow  pupil.  Played 
a  "joke"  on  another  pupil  by  fastening  a  dangerous,  sharp-pointed, 
steel  paper-file  in  the  pupil's  seat  for  him  to  sit  down  on.  He  is 
cruel,  stubborn,  and  plays  truant,  but  is  fairly  industrious  when 
he  gets  a  job  as  errand  or  delivery  boy.  Discharged  once  for  taking 
money. 

F.  H.  is  generally  called  "queer,"  but  is  not  ordinarily  thought 
of  as  feeble-minded.  His  deficiency  is  real,  however,  and  it  is  alto- 
gether doubtful  whether  he  will  be  able  to  make  a  living  and  to 
keep  out  of  trouble,  though  he  is  now  (at  age  20)  employed  as  mes- 
senger boy  for  the  Western  Union  at  $30  per  month.  This  is  con- 
siderably less  than  pick-and-shovel  men  get  in  the  community 
where  he  lives.  Delinquents  and  criminals  often  belong  to  this  level 
of  intelligence. 

W.  C.  Boy,  age  16-8;  mental  age  12;  I  Q  75  (disregarding  age 
above  16  years).  Father  a  college  professor.  All  the  other  children 
in  the  family  of  unusually  superior  intelligence.  When  tested  (four 
years  ago)  was  trying  to  do  seventh-grade  work,  but  with  little 
success.  Wanted  to  leave  school  and  learn  farming,  but  father 
insisted  on  his  getting  the  usual  grammar-school  and  high-school 


90        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

education.  Made  $25  one  summer  by  raising  vegetables  on  a  vacant 
lot.  In  the  four  years  since  the  test  was  made  he  has  managed  to 
get  into  high  school.  Teachers  say  that  in  spite  of  his  best  efforts  he 
learns  next  to  nothing,  and  they  regard  him  as  hopelessly  dull.  Is 
docile,  lacks  all  aggressiveness,  looks  stupid,  and  has  head  circum- 
ference an  inch  below  normal. 

Here  is  a  most  pitiful  case  of  the  overstimulated  backward  child 
in  a  superior  family.  Instead  of  nagging  at  the  boy  and  urging 
him  on  to  attempt  things  which  are  impossible  to  his  inferior  intel- 
ligence, his  parents  should  take  him  out  of  school  and  put  him  at 
some  kind  of  work  which  he  could  do.  If  the  boy  had  been  the 
son  of  a  common  laborer  he  would  probably  have  left  school  early 
and  have  become  a  dependable  and  contented  laborer.  In  a  very 
simple  environment  he  would  probably  not  be  considered  defective. 

C.  P.  Boy,  age  10-2;  mental  age  7-11;  I  Q  78.  Portuguese  boy, 
son  of  a  skilled  laborer.  One  of  eleven  children,  most  of  whom  have 
about  this  same  grade  of  intelligence.  Has  attended  school  regu- 
larly for  four  years.  Is  in  the  third  grade,  but  cannot  do  the  work. 
Except  for  extreme  stubbornness  his  social  development  is  fairly 
normal.  Capable  in  plays  and  games,  but  is  regarded  as  impossible 
in  his  school  work.  Like  his  brother,  M.  P.,  the  next  case  to  be 
described,  he  will  doubtless  become  a  fairly  reliable  laborer  at  un- 
skilled work  and  will  not  be  regarded,  in  his  rather  simple  environ- 
ment, as  a  defective.  From  the  psychological  point  of  view,  how- 
ever, his  deficiency  is  real.  He  will  probably  never  develop  beyond 
the  11-  or  12-year  level  or  be  able  to  do  satisfactory  school  work 
beyond  the  fifth  or  sixth  grade. 


Fia.  10.    WRITING  FROM  DICTATION.    C.  P.,  AGE  10-2; 
MENTAL  AGE  7-11 

M  .  P.  Boy,  age  14;  mental  age  10-8;  I  Q  77.  Has  been  tested  four 
successive  years,  I  Q  being  always  between  75  and  80.  Brother  to 
C.  P.  above.  In  school  nearly  eight  years  and  has  been  promoted 
to  the  fifth  grade.  At  16  was  doing  poor  work  in  the  sixth  grade. 
Good  school  advantages,  as  the  father  has  tried  conscientiously  to 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       91 

give  his  children  "a  good  education."  Perfectly  normal  in  appear- 
ance and  in  play  activities  and  is  liked  by  other  children.  Seems 
to  be  thoroughly  dependable  both  in  school  and  in  his  outside 
work.  Will  probably  become  an  excellent  laborer  and  will  pass  as 
perfectly  normal,  notwithstanding  a  grade  of  intelligence  which 
will  not  develop  above  11  or  12  years. 

What  shall  we  say  of  cases  like  the  last  two  which  test 
at  high-grade  moronity  or  at  border-line,  but  are  well 
enough  endowed  in  moral  and 
personal  traits  to  pass  as  normal 
in  an  uncomplicated  social  en- 
vironment? According  to  the 
classical  definition  of  feeble- 
mindedness such  individuals 
cannot  be  considered  defectives. 
Hardly  any  one  would  think  of 
them  as  institutional  cases. 
Among  laboring  men  and  ser- 
vant girls  there  are  thousands 
like  them  Thev  are  the  world's  ^  "'  BALL  AND  FIELD  TEST- 

IleJ    '  S   M.  P.,  AGE  14;  MENTAL  AGE  10-8 

"  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers 

of  water."  And  yet,  as  far  as  intelligence  is  concerned,  the 
tests  have  told  the  truth.  These  boys  are  uneducable  be- 
yond the  merest  rudiments  of  training.  No  amount  of 
school  instruction  will  ever  make  them  intelligent  voters 
or  capable  citizens  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.  Judged 
psychologically  they  cannot  be  considered  normal. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  M.  P.  and  C.  P.  represent 
the  level  of  intelligence  which  is  very,  very  common  among 
Spanish-Indian  and  Mexican  families  of  the  Southwest  and 
also  among  negroes.  Their  dullness  seems  to  be  racial, 
or  at  least  inherent  in  the  family  stocks  from  which  they 
come.  The  fact  that  one  meets  this  type  with  such  extra- 
ordinary frequency  among  Indians,  Mexicans,  and  negroes 


92        THE  MEASUREMENT  OP  INTELLIGENCE 

suggests  quite  forcibly  that  the  whole  question  of  racial 
differences  in  mental  traits  will  have  to  be  taken  up  anew 
and  by  experimental  methods.  The  writer  predicts  that 
when  this  is  done  there  will  be  discovered  enormously  sig 
nificant  racial  differences  in  general  intelligence,  differ- 
ences which  cannot  be  wiped  out  by  any  scheme  of  mental 
culture. 

Children  of  this  group  should  be  segregated  in  special 
classes  and  be  given  instruction  which  is  concrete  and  prac- 
tical. They  cannot  master  abstractions,  but  they  can  often 
be  made  efficient  workers,  able  to  look  out  for  themselves. 
There  is  no  possibility  at  present  of  convincing  society 
that  they  should  not  be  allowed  to  reproduce,  although 
from  a  eugenic  point  of  view  they  constitute  a  grave  prob- 
lem because  of  their  unusually  prolific  breeding. 

Dull  normals  (I  Q  usually  80  to  90).  In  this  group  are 
included  those  children  who  would  not,  according  to  any 
of  the  commonly  accepted  social  standards,  be  considered 
feeble-minded,  but  who  are  nevertheless  far  enough  below 
the  actual  average  of  intelligence  among  races  of  western 
European  descent  that  they  cannot  make  ordinary  school 
progress  or  master  other  intellectual  difficulties  which 
average  children  are  equal  to.  A  few  of  this  class  test  as 
low  as  75  to  80  I  Q,  but  the  majority  are  not  far  from  85. 
The  unmistakably  normal  children  who  go  much  below  this 
(in  California,  at  least)  are  usually  Mexicans,  Indians,  or 
negroes. 

R.  G.  Negro  boy,  age  13-5;  mental  age  10-6;  I  Q  approximately 
80.  Normal  in  appearance  and  conduct,  but  very  dull.  Is  attempt- 
ing fifth-grade  work  in  a  special  class,  but  is  failing.  From  a  fairly 
good  home  and  has  had  ordinary  school  advantages.  In  the  exam- 
ination his  intelligence  is  very  even  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  stops 
rather  abruptly  after  the  10-year  tests.  Will  unquestionably  pass 
as  normal  among  unskilled  laborers,  but  his  intelligence  will  never 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       93 

exceed  the  12-year  level  and  he  is 
not  likely  to  advance  beyond  the 
seventh  grade,  if  as  far. 

F.  D.  Boy,  tested  at  age  10-2;  I  Q 
83,  and  again   at   U-l;  I  Q.  79. 
Mental  age  in  the  first  test  was  8-6 
and  in  the  second  test  11.   Son  of  a 
barber.  Father  dead;  mother  capa- 
ble; makes  a  good  home,  and  cares 
for  her  children  well.    At  10  was 
doing  unsatisfactory   work  in   the 

fourth  grade,  and  at  12  unsatisfac-  Fl°-  12-  BALL  AND  FIELD.  R.G., 

•   xu       ^  AGE  13-5;  MENTAL  AGE  10-6 

tory  work  in  low  sixth.  Good- 
looking,  normal  in  appearance  and  social  development,  and  though 
occasionally  obstinate  is  usually  steady.  Any  one  unacquainted 
with  his  poor  school  work  and  low  I  Q  would  consider  him  per- 
fectly normal.  No  physical  or  moral  handicaps  of  any  kind  that 
could  possibly  account  for  his  retardation.  Is  simply  dull.  Needs 
purely  a  vocational  training,  but  may  be  able  to  complete  the 
eighth  grade  with  low  marks  by  the  age  of  16  or  17. 

G.  G.   Girl,  age  12-4;  mental  age  10-10;  I  Q  82.  From  average 
home.    Excellent  educational  advantages  and  no  physical  handi- 
caps. At  12  years  was  doing  very  poor  work  in  fifth  grade.  Appear- 
ance, play  life,  and  attitude  toward  other  children  normal.    Simply 
dull.    Will  probably  never  go  beyond  the  12-  or  13-year  level 
and  is  not  likely  to  get  as  far  as  the  high  school. 

Those  testing  80  and  90  will  usually  be  able  to  reach  the 
eighth  grade,  but  ordinarily  only  after  from  one  to  three  or 
four  failures.  They  are  so  very  numerous  (about  15  per 
cent  of  the  school  enrollment)  that  it  is  doubtful  whether 
we  can  expect  soon  to  have  special  classes  enough  to  ac- 
commodate all.  The  most  feasible  solution  is  a  differen- 
tiated course  of  study  with  parallel  classes  hi  which  every 
child  will  be  allowed  to  make  the  best  progress  of  which 
he  is  capable,  without  incurring  the  risk  of  failure  and  non- 


94        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

promotion.  The  so-called  Mannheim  system,  or  something 
similar  to  it,  is  what  we  need. 

Average  intelligence  (I  Q  90  to  110).  It  is  often  said 
that  the  schools  are  made  for  the  average  child,  but  that 
"  the  average  child  does  not  exist."  He  does  exist,  and 
in  very  large  numbers.  About  60  per  cent  of  all  school 
children  test  between  90  and  110  I  Q,  and  about  40  per 
cent  between  95  and  105.  That  these  children  are  average  is 
attested  by  their  school  records  as  well  as  by  their  I  Q's. 
Our  records  show  that,  of  more  than  200  children  below 
14  years  of  age  and  with  I  Q  between  95  and  105,  not  one 
was  making  much  more  nor  much  less  than  average  school 
progress.  Four  were  two  years  retarded,  but  in  each  case 
this  was  due  to  late  start,  illness,  or  irregular  attendance. 
Children  who  test  close  to  90,  however,  often  fail  to  get 
along  satisfactorily,  while  those  testing  near  110  are  oc- 
casionally able  to  win  an  extra  promotion. 

The  children  of  this  average  group  are  seldom  school 
problems,  as  far  as  ability  to  learn  is  concerned.  Nor  are 
they  as  likely  to  cause  trouble  in  discipline  as  the  dull 
and  border-line  cases. ;  It  is  therefore  hardly  necessary  to 
give  illustrative  cases  here. 

The  high  school,  however,  does  not  fit  their  grade  of  in- 
telligence as  well  as  the  elementary  and  grammar  schools. 
High  schools  probably  enroll  a  disproportionate  number  of 
pupils  in  the  I  Q  range  above  100.  That  is,  the  average  in- 
telligence among  high-school  pupils  is  above  the  average 
for  the  population  in  general.  It  is  probably  not  far  from 
110.  College  students  are,  of  course,  a  still  more  selected 
group,  perhaps  coming  chiefly  from  the  range  above  115. 
The  child  whose  school  marks  are  barely  average  in  the  ele- 
mentary grades,  when  measured  against  children  in  general, 
will  ordinarily  earn  something  less  than  average  marks  in 
high  school,  and  perhaps  excessively  poor  marks  in  college. 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       95 

Superior  intelligence  (I  Q  110  to  120).  Children  of  this 
group  ordinarily  make  higher  marks  and  are  capable  of 
making  somewhat  more  rapid  progress  than  the  strictly 
average  child.  Perhaps  most  of  them  could  complete  the 
eight  grades  in  seven  years  as  easily  as  the  average  child 
does  in  eight  years.  They  are  not  usually  the  best  scholars, 
but  on  a  scale  of  excellent,  good,  fair,  poor,  and  failure  they 
will  usually  rank  as  good,  though  of  course  the  degree  of 
application  is  a  factor.  It  is  rare,  however,  to  find  a  child 
of  this  level  who  is  positively  indolent  in  his  school  work  or 
who  dislikes  school.  In  high  school  they  are  likely  to  win 
about  the  average  mark. 

Intelligence  of  110  to  120  I  Q  is  approximately  five  times 
as  common  among  children  of  superior  social  status  as 
among  children  of  inferior  social  status;  the  proportion 
among  the  former  being  about  24  per  cent  of  all,  and  among 
the  latter  only  5  per  cent  of  all.  The  group  is  made  up 
largely  of  children  of  the  fairly  successful  mercantile  or 
professional  classes. 

The  total  number  of  children  between  110  and  120  is 
almost  exactly  the  same  as  the  number  between  80  and 
90;  namely,  about  15  per  cent.  The  distance  between  these 
two  groups  (say  between  85  and  115)  is  as  great  as  the 
distance  between  average  intelligence  and  border-line 
deficiency,  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that 
they  could  be  taught  to  best  advantage  in  the  same 
classes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  pupils  between  110  and  120 
are  usually  held  back  to  the  rate  of  progress  which  the 
average  child  can  make.  They  are  little  encouraged  to  do 
their  best. 

Very  superior  intelligence  (I  Q  120  to  140).  Children  of 
this  group  are  better  than  somewhat  above  average.  They 
are  unusually  superior.  Not  more  than  3  out  of  100  go  as 
high  as  125  I  Q,  and  only  about  1  out  of  100  as  high  as  130. 


96        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

In  the  schools  of  a  city  of  average  population  only  about  1 
child  in  250  or  300  tests  as  high  as  140  I  Q. 

In  a  series  of  476  unselected  children  there  was  not  a 
single  one  reaching  120  whose  social  class  was  described 
as  "below  average."1  Of  the  children  of  superior  so- 
cial status,  about  10  per  cent  reached  120  or  better. 
The  120-140  group  is  made  up  almost  entirely  of 
children  whose  parents  belong  to  the  professional  or 
very  successful  business  classes.  The  child  of  a  skilled 
laborer  belongs  here  occasionally,  the  child  of  a  common 
laborer  very  rarely  indeed.  At  least  this  is  true  hi 
the  smaller  cities  of  California  among  populations  made 
up  of  native-born  Americans.  In  all  probability  it  would 
not  have  been  true  in  the  earlier  history  of  the  coun- 
try when  ordinary  labor  was  more  often  than  now  per- 
formed by  men  of  average  intelligence,  and  it  would 
probably  not  hold  true  now  among  certain  immigrant 
populations  of  good  stock,  but  limited  social  and  educa- 
tional advantages. 

What  can  children  of  this  grade  of  ability  do  in  school? 
The  question  cannot  be  answered  as  satisfactorily  as  one 
could  wish,  for  the  simple  reason  that  such  children  are 
rarely  permitted  to  do  what  they  can.  What  they  do  accom- 
plish is  as  follows:  Of  54  children  (of  the  1000  unselected 
cases)  falling  in  this  group,  12}/£  per  cent  were  advanced  in 
the  grades  two  years,  approximately  54  per  cent  were  ad- 
vanced one  year,  28  per  cent  were  in  the  grade  where  they 
belonged  by  chronological  age,  and  three  children,  or  5^ 
per  cent,  were  actually  retarded  one  year.  But  wherever 
located,  such  children  rarely  get  anything  but  the  highest 
marks,  and  the  evidence  goes  to  show  that  most  of  them 
could  easily  be  prepared  for  high  school  by  the  age  of  12 

1  In  other  investigations,  however,  we  have  found  even  brighter  chil- 
dren from  very  inferior  homes.  See  p.  117  for  an  example. 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       97 

years.  Serious  injury  is  done  them  by  schools  which  believe 
in  "  putting  on  the  brakes." 

The  following  are  illustrations  of  children  testing  be- 
tween 130  and  145.  Not  all  are  taken  from  the  1000  un- 
selected  tests.  The  writer  has  discovered  several  children 
of  this  grade  as  a  result  of  lectures  before  teachers'  insti- 
tutes. It  is  his  custom,  in  such  lectures,  to  ask  the  teachers 
to  bring  in  for  a  demonstration  test  the  "  brightest  child 
in  the  city  "  (or  county,  etc.).  The  I  Q  resulting  from 
such  a  test  is  usually  between  130  and  140,  occasionally  a 
little  higher. 

Examples  of  very  superior  intelligence 

Margaret  P.  Age  8-10;  mental  age  11-1;  1  Q  130.  Father  only 
a  skilled  laborer  (house  painter),  but  a  man  of  unusual  intelligence 
and  character  for  his  social  class.  Home  care  above  average.  M.  P. 
has  attended  school  a  little  less  than  three  years  and  is  completing 
fourth  grade.  Marks  all  "excellent."  Health  perfect.  Social  and 
moral  traits  of  the  very  best.  Is  obedient,  conscientious,  and  un- 
usually reliable  for  her  age.  Quiet  and  confident  bearing,  but  no 
touch  of  vanity. 

M.  P.  is  known  to  be  related  on  her  father's  side  to  John  Wesley, 
and  her  maternal  grandfather  was  a  highly  skilled  mechanic  and 
the  inventor  of  an  important  train-coupling  device  used  on  all 
railroads. 

Although  she  is  not  yet  9  years  old  and  is  completing  the  fourth 
grade,  she  is  still  about  a  grade  below  where  she  belongs  by  mental 
age.  She  could  no  doubt  easily  be  made  ready  for  high  school  by 
the  age  of  12. 

J.  R.  Girl,  age  12-0;  mental  age  10  (average  adult);  I  Q  approxi- 
mately 130.  Daughter  of  a  university  professor.  In  first  year  of 
high  school.  From  first  grade  up  her  marks  have  been  nearly  all  of 
the  A  rank.  For  first  semester  of  high  school  four  of  six  grades 
were  A,  the  others  B.  A  wonderfully  charming,  delightful  girl  in 
every  respect.  Play  life  perfectly  normal. 

J.  R.'s  parents  have  moved  about  a  great  deal  and  she  has  at- 
tended eight  different  schools.  She  is  two  years  above  grade  in 
school,  but  of  this  gain  only  one-half  grade  was  made  in  school; 


98        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 


the  other  grade  and  a  half  she  gained  in  a  little  over  a  year  by  staying 
out  of  school  and  working  a  little  each  day  under  the  instruction  of  her 
mother.  But  for  this  she  would  doubtless  now  be  in  the  seventh 
grade  instead  of  in  high  school.  As  it  is  she  is  at  least  a  grade 
below  where  she  belongs  by  mental  age.  Something  better  than 
an  average  college  record  may  be  safely  predicted  for  J.  R. 

E.  B.  Girl,  age  7-9;  mental  age  10-2;  I  Q  130.  E.  B.  was  selected 
by  the  teachers  of  a  small  California  city  as  the  brightest  school 
child  in  that  city  (school  population  about  500).  Her  parents  are 

said  to  be  unusually  intelligent.  E. 
B.  is  in  the  third  grade,  a  year  ad- 
vanced, but  her  mental  level  shows 
that  she  belongs  in  the  fourth.  The 
test  was  made  as  a  demonstration 
test  in  the  presence  of  about  150 
teachers,  all  of  whom  were  charmed 
by  her  delightful  personality  and 
keen  responses.  No  trace  of  vanity 
or  queerness  of  any  kind.  Health 
excellent.  E.  B.  ought  to  be  ready 
for  high  school  at  12;  she  will  really 
FIG.  is.  BALL  AND  FIELD  TEST.  have  the  intelligence  to  do  high- 
E.  B.,  AGE  7-9-,  I  Q  iso  school  work  by  11. 

'  L.  B.  Girl,  age  8-6;  mental  age  11-6;  I  Q  135.  Tested  nearly 
three  years  earlier,  age  5-11;  mental  age  7-6;  I  Q  127.  Daughter 
of  a  university  professor.  At  age  of  8-6  was  doing  very  superior 
work  in  the  fifth  grade.  Later,  at  age  of  10-6,  is  in  the  seventh 
grade  with  all  her  marks  excellent.  Has  two  sisters  who  test  almost 
as  high,  both  completing  the  eighth  grade  at  barely  12  years  of  age. 
L.  B.  looks  rather  delicate,  and  though  a  little  nervous  is  ordinarily 
strong.  We  have  known  her  since  her  early  childhood.  Like  both 
her  sisters,  she  is  a  favorite  with  young  and  old,  as  nearly  perfection 
as  the  most  charming  little  girl  could  be. 

1 "  R.  S.  Boy,  age  6-5;  mental  age  9-6;  I  Q  148-  When  tested  at 
age  5-2  he  had  a  mental  age  of  7-6,  I  Q  142.  Father  a  university 
professor.  R.  S.  entered  school  at  exactly  6  years  of  age,  and  at 
the  present  writing  is  7%  years  old  and  is  entering  the  third  grade. 
Leads  his  class  in  school  and  takes  delight  in  the  work.  Is  normal 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE       99 

in  play  life  and  social  traits  and  is  dependable  and  thoughtful  be- 
yond his  years.  Should  enter  high  school  not  later  than  12;  could 
probably  be  made  ready  a  year  earlier,  but  as  he  is  somewhat 
nervous  this  might  not  be  wise. 

T.  F.  Boy,  age  10-6;  mental  age  U;  I  Q  133.  At  13-6  tested  at 
"superior  adult,"  and  had  vocabulary  of  13,000  (also  "superior 
adult").  Son  of  a  college  professor.  Did  not  go  to  school  till  age 
of  9  years  and  was  not  taught  to  read  till  8J^.  At  this  writing  he 
is  15^2  years  old  and  is  a  senior  in  high  school.  He  will  complete 
the  high-school  course  in  three  and  one-half  years  with  A  to  B 
marks,  mostly  A.  Gets  his  hardest  mathematics  lessons  in  five  to 
ten  minutes.  Science  is  his  play.  When  he  discovered  Hodge's 
Nature  Study  and  Life  at  age  of  11  years  he  literally  slept  with  the 
book  till  he  almost  knew  it  by  heart.  Since  age  12  he  has  given 
much  time  to  magazines  on  mechanics  and  electricity.  At  13  he 
installed  a  wireless  apparatus  without  other  aid  than  his  electrical 
magazines.  He  has,  for  a  boy  of  his  age,  a  rather  remarkable  un- 
derstanding of  the  principles  underlying  electrical  applications. 
He  is  known  by  his  playmates  as  "the  boy  with  a  hobby."  Stamp 
collections,  butterfly  and  moth  collections  (over  70  different  varie- 
ties), seashore  collections,  and  wireless  apparatus  all  show  that 
the  appellation  is  fully  merited.  He  chooses  his  hobbies  and  "  rides  " 
them  entirely  on  his  own  initiative. 

J.  S.  Boy,  age  8-2;  mental  age  11-4;  I  Q  13S.  Father  was  a 
lawyer,  parents  now  dead.  Is  in  high  fourth  grade.  Leads  his 
class.  Attractive,  healthy,  normal-appearing  lad.  Full  of  good 
humor.  Is  loving  and  obedient,  strongly  attached  to  his  foster 
mother  (an  aunt).  Composes  verses  and  fables  for  pastime.  Here 
are  a  couple  of  verses  composed  before  his  eighth  birthday.  They 
arc  reproduced  without  change  of  spelling  or  punctuation :  — 

Christmas  Flowers 

Hurrah  for  Christmas  Flowers  in  the  garden. 

And  all  it's  joy's  That  is  all  you  see 

That  corae  that  day  Who  likes  them  best? 

For  girls  and  boy's.  That 's  the  honey  bee. 

J.  S.  ought  to  be  in  the  fifth  grade,  instead  of  the  fourth.  He  will 
easily  be  able  to  enter  college  by  the  age  of  15  if  he  is  allowed  to 


100       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE' 

make  the  progress  which  would  be  normal  to  a  child  of  his  intelli- 
gence. But  it  is  too  much  to  expect  that  the  school  will  permit  this. 

F.  Me  A.  Boy,  age  10-3;  mental  age  14-6;  I  Q  11*2.  Father  a 
school  principal.  F.  is  leading  his  class  of  24  pupils  in  the  high 
seventh  grade.  Has  received  so  many  extra  promotions  only  be- 
cause his  father  insisted  that  the  teachers  allow  him  to  try  the 
next  grade.  The  dire  consequences  which  they  predicted  have 
never  followed.  F.  is  perfectly  healthy  and  one  of  the  most  attrac- 
tive lads  the  writer  has  ever  seen.  He  has  the  normal  play  in- 
stincts, but  when  not  at  play  he 
has  the  dignified  bearing  of  a  young 
prince,  although  without  vanity. 
His  vocabulary  is  9000  (14  years), 
and  his  ability  is  remarkably  even 
in  ah"  directions.  F.  should  easily 
enter  college  by  the  age  of  15. 


E.  M.  Boy,  age  6-11;  mental  age 
10;  I Q  145.  Learned  to  read  at  age 
of  5  without  instruction  and  shortly 
afterward  had  learned  from  geog- 
raphy maps  the  capitals  of  all  the 

Fio.  14.  BALLAND FIELD.  F.McA.,  States    of    the,    Union'      Started   to 
AGE  io-3;  MENTAL  AGE  14-6     school  at  7>£.     Entered   the  first 

grade  at  9  A.M.  and  had  been  pro- 
moted to  the  fourth  grade  by  3  P.M.  of  the  same  day!  Has  now 
attended  school  a  half-year  and  is  in  the  fifth  grade,  age  7  years, 
8  months.  Father  is  on  the  faculty  of  a  university. 

E.  M.  is  as  superior  hi  personal  and  moral  traits  as  in  intelli- 
gence. Responsible,  sturdy,  playful,  full  of  humor,  loving,  obedi- 
ent. Health  is  excellent.  Has  had  no  home  instruction  in  school 
work.  His  progress  has  been  perfectly  natural. 

The  above  list  of  "  very  superior  "  children  includes 
only  a  few  of  those  we  have  tested  who  belong  to  this  grade 
of  intelligence.  Every  child  in  the  list  is  so  interesting  that 
it  is  hard  to  omit  any.  We  have  found  all  such  children 
(with  one  or  two  exceptions  not  included  here)  so  superior 
to  average  children  in  all  sorts  of  mental  and  moral  traits 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE     101 

that  one  is  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  the  popular  super- 
stitions about  the  "  queerness  "  of  bright  children  could 
have  originated  or  survived.  Nearly  every  child  we  have 
found  with  I  Q  above  140  is  the  kind  one  feels,  before  the 
test  is  over,  one  would  like  to  adopt.  If  the  crime  of  kid- 
naping could  ever  be  forgiven  it  would  be  in  the  case  of  a 
child  like  one  of  these. 


Fio.  15.    DRAWING  DESIGNS  FROM  MEMORY.    E.  M.f  AGE  6-11; 

MENTAL  AGE  10;  I  Q  145 
(This  performance  is  satisfactory  for  year  10) 

Genius  and  "  near  "  genius.  Intelligence  tests  have  not 
been  in  use  long  enough  to  enable  us  to  define  genius  defi- 
nitely in  terms  of  I  Q.  The  following  two  cases  are  offered 
as  among  the  highest  test  records  of  which  the  writer  has 
personal  knowledge.  It  is  doubtful  whether  more  than  one 
child  in  10,000  goes  as  high  as  either.  One  case  has  been 
reported,  however,  hi  which  the  I  Q  was  not  far  from  200. 
Such  a  record,  if  reliable,  is  certainly  phenomenal. 

E.  F.  Russian  boy,  age  8-5;  mental  age  13;  I Q  approximately  155. 
Mother  is  a  university  student  apparently  of  very  superior  intelli- 
gence. E.  F.  has  a  sister  almost  as  remarkable  as  himself.  E.  F. 
is  in  the  sixth  grade  and  at  the  head  of  his  class.  Although  about 
four  grades  advanced  beyond  his  chronological  age  he  is  still  one 
grade  retarded !  He  could  easily  carry  seventh-grade  work.  In  all 
probability  E.  F.  could  be  made  ready  for  college  by  the  age  of  12 
years  without  injury  to  body  or  mind.  His  mother  has  taken  the 
only  sensible  course;  she  has  encouraged  him  without  subjecting 
him  to  overstimulation. 


HDBIBV 


102      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 


E.  F.  was  selected  for  the  test  as  probably  one  of  the  brightest 
children  in  a  city  of  a  third  of  a  million  population.  He  may  not 
be  the  brightest  in  that  city,  but  he  is  one  of  the  three  or  four  most 
intelligent  the  writer  has  found  after  a  good  deal  of  searching.  He 
is  probably  equaled  by  not  more  than  one  in  several  thousand  un- 
selected  children.  How  impatiently  one  waits  to  see  the  fruit  of 
such  a  budding  genius! 

B.  F.  Son  of  a  minister,  age  7-8;  mental  age  13-4;  I  Q  160. 
Vocabulary  7000  (12  years).  This  test  was  not  made  by  the  writer, 

but  by  one  of  his  graduate  stu- 
dents. The  record  included  the 
verbatim  responses,  so  that  it  was 
easy  to  verify  the  scoring.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  substan- 
tial accuracy  of  the  test.  This  I  Q 
of  160  is  the  highest  one  in  the 
Stanford  University  records.  B.  F. 
has  excellent  health,  normal  play 
interests,  and  is  a  favorite  among 
his  playfellows.  Parents  had^not 
thought  of  him  as  especially  re- 
markable. He  is  only  in  the  third 

AGE  7-8;  MENTAL  AGE  12-4;    grad*e,  and  is  therefore  about  three 
I  Q  160  grades  below  his  mental  age. 

[       (This  is  a  12-year  performance) 

It    is    especially   noteworthy 

that  not  one  of  the  children  we  have  described  with  I  Q 
above  130  has  ever  had  any  unusual  amount  or  kind  of 
home  instruction.  In  most  cases  the  parents  were  not 
aware  of  their  very  great  superiority.  Nor  can  we  give  the 
credit  to  the  school  or  its  methods.  The  school  has  in  most 
cases  been  a  deterrent  to  their  progress,  rather  than  a  help. 
These  children  have  been  taught  in  classes  with  average 
and  inferior  children,  like  those  described  in  the  first 
part  of  this  chapter.  Their  high  I  Q  is  only  an  index  of 
their  extraordinary  cerebral  endowment.  This  endowment 
is  for  life.  There  is  not  the  remotest  probability  that  any 


Fio.  16.   BALL  AND  FIELD.  B.  F., 


INTELLIGENCE  QUOTIENT  SIGNIFICANCE     103 

of  these  children  will  deteriorate  to  the  average  level  of 
intelligence  with  the  onset  of  maturity.  Such  an  event 
would  be  no  less  a  miracle  (barring  insanity)  than  the  de- 
velopment of  an  imbecile  into  a  successful  lawyer  or 
physician. 

Is  the  I  Q  often  misleading  ?  Do  the  cases  described  in 
this  chapter  give  a  reliable  picture  as  to  what  one  may 
expect  of  the  various  I  Q  levels?  Does  the  I  Q  furnish  any- 
thing like  a  reliable  index  of  an  individual's  general  educa- 
tional possibilities  and  of  his  social  worth?  Are  there  not 
"  feeble-minded  geniuses,"  and  are  there  not  children  of 
exceptionally  high  I  Q  who  are  nevertheless  fools? 

We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  there  is  not  one 
case  in  fifty  in  which  there  is  any  serious  contradiction 
between  the  I  Q  and  the  child's  performances  in  and  out  of 
school.  We  cannot  deny  the  existence  of  "  feeble-minded 
geniuses,"  but  after  a  good  deal  of  search  we  have  not  found 
one.  Occasionally,  of  course,  one  finds  a  feeble-minded  per- 
son who  is  an  expert  penman,  who  draws  skillfully,  who 
plays  a  musical  instrument  tolerably  well,  or  who  handles 
number  combinations  with  unusual  rapidity;  but  these 
are  not  geniuses;  they  are  not  authors,  artists,  musicians, 
or  mathematicians. 

As  for  exceptionally  intelligent  children  who  appear 
feeble-minded,  we  have  found  but  one  case,  a  boy  of  10 
years  with  an  I  Q  of  about  125.  This  boy,  whom  we  have 
tested  several  times  and  whose  development  we  have  fol- 
lowed for  five  years,  was  once  diagnosed  by  a  physician 
as  feeble-minded.  His  behavior  among  other  persons  than 
his  familiar  associates  is  such  as  to  give  this  impression. 
Nothing  less  than  an  entire  chapter  would  be  adequate  for 
a  description  of  this  case,  which  is  in  reality  one  of  dis- 
turbed emotional  and  social  development  with  superior 
intelligence. 


It  should  be  emphasized,  however,  that  what  we  have 
said  about  the  significance  of  various  I  Q's  holds  only  for 
the  I  Q's  secured  by  the  use  of  the  Stanford  revision.  As 
we  have  shown  elsewhere  (p.  62  jf.)  the  I  Q  yielded  by  other 
versions  of  the  Binet  tests  are  often  so  inaccurate  as  to  be 
misleading. 

/We  have  not  found  a  single  child  who  tested  between 
70  and  80  I  Q  by.  the  Stanford  revision  who  was  able  to 
do  satisfactory  school  work  in  the  grade  where  he  belonged 
by  chronological  age.  Such  children  are  usually  from  two 
to  three  grades  retarded  by  the  age  of  12  years.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  child  with  an  I  Q  of  120  or  above  is  almost 
never  found  below  the  grade  for  his  chronological  age,  and 
occasionally  he  is  one  or  two  grades  above.  Wherever  lo- 
cated, his  school  work  is  so  superior  as  to  suggest  strongly 
the  desirability  of  extra  promotions.  Those  who  test  be- 
tween 96  and  105  are  almost  never  more  than  one  grade 
above  or  below  where  they  belong  by  chronological  age, 
and  even  the  small  displacement  of  one  year  is  usually 
determined  by  illness,  age  of  beginning  school,  etc. 


CHAPTER  VII 

RELIABILITY  OF  THE  BINET-SIMON  METHOD 

General  value  of  the  method.  In  a  former  chapter  we  have 
noted  certain  imperfections  of"  the  scale  devised  by  Binet 
and  Simon;  namely,  that  many  of  the  tests  were  not  cor- 
rectly located,  that  the  choice  of  tests  was  in  a  few  cases 
unsatisfactory,  that  the  directions  for  giving  and  scoring 
the  tests  were  sometimes  too  indefinite,  and  that  the  upper 
and  lower  ranges  of  the  scale  especially  stood  in  need  of 
extensions  and  corrections.  All  of  these  faults  have  been 
quite  generally  admitted.  The  method  itself,  however, 
after  being  put  to  the  test  by  psychologists  of  all  countries 
and  of  all  faiths,  by  the  skeptical  as  well  as  the  friendly, 
has  amply  demonstrated  its  value.  The  agreement  on  this 
point  is  as  complete  as  it  is  regarding  the  scale's  imper- 
fections. 

The  following  quotations  from  prominent  psychologists 
who  have  studied  the  method  will  serve  to  show  how  it  is 
regarded  by  those  most  entitled  to  an  opinion:  — 

There  can  be  no  question  about  the  fact  that  the  Binet-Simon 
tests  do  not  make  half  as  frequent  or  half  as  great  errors  in  the 
mental  ages  (of  feeble-minded  children)  as  are  included  in  gradings 
based  on  careful,  prolonged  general  observation  by  experienced 
observers.1 

All  of  the  different  authors  who  have  made  these  researches 
(with  Binet's  method)  are  in  a  general  way  unanimous  in  recog- 

1  Dr.  F.  Kuhlmann:  "The  Binet-Simon  Tests  of  Intelligence  in  Grading 
Feeble-Minded  Children,"  in  Journal  of  Psycho- Asihenics  (1912),  p.  189. 


10G       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

nizing  that  the  principle  of  the  scale  is  extremely  fortunate,  and 
all  believe  that  it  offers  the  basis  of  a  most  useful  method  for  the 
examination  of  intelligence.1 

It  serves  as  a  relatively  simple  and  speedy  method  of  securing, 
by  means  accessible  to  every  one,  a  true  insight  into  the  average 
level  of  ability  of  a  child  between  3  and  15  years  of  age.2 

That,  despite  the  differences  in  race  and  language,  despite  the 
divergences  in  school  organization  and  in  methods  of  instruction, 
there  should  be  so  decided  agreement  in  the  reactions  of  the  chil- 
dren —  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  best  vindication  of  the  principle  of 
the  tests  that  one  could  imagine,  because  this  agreement  demon- 
strates that  the  tests  do  actually  reach  and  discover  the  general  develop- 
mental conditions  of  intelligence  (so  far  as  these  are  operative  in 
public-school  children  of  the  present  cultural  epoch),  and  not 
mere  fragments  of  knowledge  and  attainments  acquired  by  chance.3 

It  is  without  doubt  the  most  satisfactory  and  accurate  method  of 
determining  a  child's  intelligence  that  we  have,  and  so  far  superior 
to  everything  else  which  has  been  proposed  that  as  yet  there  is 
nothing  else  to  be  considered.4 

The  value  of  the  method  lies  both  in  the  swiftness  and 
the  accuracy  with  which  it  works.  One  who  knows  how  to 
apply  the  tests  correctly  and  who  is  experienced  in  the  psy- 
chological interpretation  of  responses  can  in  forty  minutes 
arrive  at  a  more  accurate  judgment  as  to  a  subject's  in- 
telligence than  would  be  possible  without  the  tests  after 
months  or  even  years  of  close  observation.  The  reasons  for 
this  have  already  been  set  forth.5  The  difference  is  some- 
thing like  that  between  measuring  a  person's  height  with 
a  yardstick  and  estimating  it  by  guess.  That  this  is  not  an 
unfair  statement  of  the  case  is  well  shown  by  the  follow- 

1  Dr.  Otto  Bobertag:  "L'echelle  metrique  de  1'intelligence,"  in  L'Annee 
Psychologique  (1912),  p.  272. 

2  Dr.  Ernest  Meumann:  Experimentelle  Pddagogik  (1913),  vol.  n,  p.  277. 

3  Dr.  W.  Stern:    The  Psychological  Methods  of   Testing   Intelligence. 
Translated  by  Whipple  (1913),  p.  49. 

4  Dr.  H.  H.  Goddard:  "The  Binet  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence;  What 
it  is  and  How  it  is  to  be  Used,"  in  The  Training  School  Bulletin  (1912). 

8  See  this  volume,  p.  24  ff. 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  METHOD  107 

ing  candid  confession  by  a  psychologist  who  tested  200  juve- 
nile delinquents  brought  before  Judge  Lindsey's  court:  — 

As  a  matter  of  interest  I  estimated  the  mental  ages  of  150  of  my 
subjects  before  testing  them.  In  54  of  the  estimates  the  error  was 
not  more  than  one  year  in  either  direction;  70  of  the  subjects  were 
estimated  too  high,  the  average  error  being  2  years  and  7  months; 
26  of  the  subjects  were  estimated  too  low,  the  average  error  being 
2  years  and  2  months.  These  figures  would  seem,  to  imply  that  an 
estimate  with  nothing  to  support  it  is  wholly  unreliable,  more  especi- 
ally as  many  of  the  estimates  were  four  or  five  years  wide  of  the  mark.1 

Criticisms  of  the  Binet  method  have  also  been  frequently 
voiced,  but  chiefly  by  persons  who  have  had  little  experi- 
ence with  it  or  by  those  whose  scientific  training  hardly 
justifies  an  opinion.  It  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized 
that  eminence  in  law,  medicine,  education,  or  any  other 
profession  does  not  of  itself  enable  any  one  to  pass 
judgment  on  the  validity  of  a  psychological  method. 

Dependence  of  the  scale's  reliability  on  the  training  of 
the  examiner.  On  this  point  two  radically  different  opin- 
ions have  been  urged.  On  the  one  hand,  some  have  insisted 
that  the  results  of  a  test  made  by  other  than  a  thoroughly 
trained  psychologist  are  absolutely  worthless.  At  the  oppo- 
site extreme  are  a  few  who  seem  to  think  that  any  teacher 
or  physician  can  secure  perfectly  valid  results  after  a  few 
hours'  acquaintance  with  the  tests. 

The  dispute  is  one  which  cannot  be  settled  by  the  as- 
sertion of  opinion,  and,  unfortunately,  thoroughgoing  in- 
vestigations have  not  yet  been  made  as  to  the  frequency 
and  extent  of  errors  made  by  untrained  or  partially  trained 
examiners.  The  only  study  of  this  kind  which  has  so  far 
been  reported  is  the  following: — 2 

1  C.  S.  Bluerael :  "  Binet  Testa  on  200  Delinquents,"  in  The  Training 
School  Bulletin  (1915),  p.  192.     (Italics  inserted.) 

2  Samuel  C.  Kohs:  "The  Binet  Test  and  the  Training  of  Teachers,"  in 
The  Training  School  Bulletin  (1914),  pp.  113-17. 


108      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Dr.  Kohs  gives  the  results  of  tests  made  by  58  inex- 
perienced teachers  who  were  taking  a  summer  course  in 
the  Training  School  at  Vineland.  The  class  met  three  times 
a  week  for  instruction  in  the  use  of  the  Binet  scale.  During 
the  first  week  the  students  listened  to  three  lectures  by 
Dr.  Goddard.  The  second  week  was  given  over  to  demon- 
stration testing.  Each  student  saw  four  children  tested, 
and  attended  two  discussion  periods  of  an  hour  each. 
During  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  weeks  each  student 
tested  one  child  per  week,  and  observed  the  testing  of  two 
others.  The  student  was  allowed  to  carry  the  test  through 
in  his  own  way,  but  received  criticism  after  it  was  finished. 
Twice  a  week  Dr.  Goddard  spent  an  hour  with  the  class, 
discussing  experimental  procedure.  The  subjects  tested 
were  feeble-minded  children  whose  exact  mental  ages 
were  already  known,  and  for  this  reason  it  was  possible  to 
check  up  the  accuracy  of  each  student's  work. 

Kohs's  table  of  results  for  the  trial  testing  of  the  174 
children  showed:  — 

(1)  That  50  per  cent  of  the  work  was  as  exact  as  any 
one  in  the  laboratory  could  make  it; 

(2)  That  in  an  additional  38  per  cent  the  results  were 
within  three  fifths  of  a  year  of  being  exact; 

(3)  That  nearly  90  per  cent  of  the  work  of  the  summer 
students  was  sufficiently  accurate  for  all  practical 
purposes; 

(4)  That  the  records  improved  during  the  brief  training 
so  that  during  the  third  week  only  one  test  missed 
the  real  mental  age  by  as  much  as  a  year. 

Since  hardly  any  of  these  students  had  had  any  previous 
experience  with  the  Binet  tests,  Dr.  Kohs  seems  to  be  en- 
tirely justified  in  his  conclusion  that  it  is  possible,  in  the 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  METHOD  109 

brief  period  of  six  weeks,  to  teach  people  to  use  the  tests 
with  a  reasonable  degree  of  accuracy. 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  teacher  or  of  the  physician  who 
has  not  even  had  this  amount  of  instruction?  The  writer's 
experience  forces  him  to  agree  with  Binet  and  with  Dr. 
Goddard,  that  any  one  with  intelligence  enough  to  be  a 
teacher,  and  who  is  willing  to  devote  conscientious  study 
to  the  mastery  of  the  technique,  can  use  the  scale  accurately 
enough  to  get  a  better  idea  of  a  child's  mental  endowment 
than  he  could  possibly  get  in  any  other  way.  It  is  necessary, 
however,  for  the  untrained  person  to  recognize  his  own  lack 
of  experience,  and  in  no  case  would  it  be  justifiable  to 
base  important  action  or  scientific  conclusions  upon  the 
results  of  the  inexpert  examiner.  As  Binet  himself  re- 
peatedly insisted,  the  method  is  not  absolutely  mechanical, 
and  cannot  be  made  so  by  elaboration  of  instructions. 

It  is  sometimes  held  that  the  examination  and  classifica- 
tion of  backward  children  for  special  instruction  should  be 
carried  out  by  the  school  physicians.  The  fact  is,  however, 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  physician's  training  to  give 
him  any  advantage  over  the  ordinary  teacher  in  the  use  of 
the  Binet  tests.  Because  of  her  more  intimate  knowledge  of 
children  and  because  of  her  superior  tact  and  adaptability, 
the  average  teacher  is  perhaps  better  equipped  than  the 
average  physician  to  give  intelligence  tests. 

Finally,  it  should  be  emphasized  that  whatever  the 
previous  training  or  experience  of  the  examiner  may  have 
been,  his  ability  to  adjust  to  the  child's  personality  and  his 
willingness  to  follow  conscientiously  the  directions  for  giv- 
ing the  tests  are  important  factors  in  his  equipment. 

Influence  of  the  subject's  attitude.  One  continually 
meets  such  queries  as,  "  How  do  you  know  the  subject 
did  his  best? "  "  Possibly  the  child  was  nervous  or 
frightened,"  or,  "  Perhaps  incorrect  answers  were  purposely 


110      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

given."  All  such  objections  may  be  disposed  of  by  saying 
that  the  competent  examiner  can  easily  control  the  experi- 
ment in  such  a  way  that  embarrassment  is  soon  replaced  by 
self-confidence,  and  in  such  a  way  that  effort  is  kept  at  its 
maximum.  As  for  mischievous  deception,  it  would  be  a 
poor  clinicist  who  could  not  recognize  and  deal  with  the 
little  that  is  likely  to  arise. 

Cautions  regarding  embarrassment,  fatigue,  fright,  ill- 
ness, etc.,  are  given  in  Chapter  IX.  Most  of  the  errors  which 
have  been  reported  along  this  line  are  such  as  can  nearly 
always  be  avoided  by  ordinary  prudence,  coupled  with  a 
little  power  of  observation.1  We  must  not  charge  the  mis- 
takes of  untrained  and  indiscreet  examiners  against  the 
validity  of  the  method  itself. 

It  is  possibly  true  that  even  if  the  examiner  is  tactful 
and  prudent  an  unfavorable  attitude  on  the  part  of  the 
subject  may  occasionally  affect  the  results  of  a  test  to  some 
extent,  but  it  ought  not  seriously  to  invalidate  one  examina- 
tion out  of  five  hundred.  The  greatest  danger  is  in  the  case 
of  a  young  subject  who  has  been  recently  arrested  and 
brought  before  a  court.  Even  here  a  little  common  sense 
and  scientific  insight  should  enable  one  to  guard  against  a 
mistaken  diagnosis. 

The  influence  of  coaching.  It  might  be  supposed  that 
after  the  intelligence  scale  had  been  used  with  a  few  pupils 
in  a  given  school  all  of  their  fellows  would  soon  be  apprised 
of  the  nature  of  the  tests,  and  so  learn  the  correct  responses. 
Experience  shows,  however,  that  there  is  little  likelihood 
of  such  influence  except  in  the  case  of  a  small  minority  of 
the  tests.  Experiments  in  the  psychology  of  testimony  have 
demonstrated  that  children's  ability  to  report  upon  a  com- 
plex set  of  experiences  is  astonishingly  weak.  In  testing 

1  See,  for  example,  the  rather  ludicrous  "errors"  of  the  Binet  method 
reported  in  The  Psyclwlogical  Clinic  for  1915,  pp.  140  jf.  and  107  jf. 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  METHOD  111 

with  the  Stanford  revision  a  child  is  ordinarily  given  from 
twenty -four  to  thirty  different  tests,  many  of  which  are 
made  up  of  three  or  more  items.  Of  the  total  forty  to  fifty 
items  the  child  is  ordinarily  able  to  report  but  few,  and 
these  not  always  correctly. 

Such  tests  as  memory  for  sentences  and  digits,  drawing 
the  square  and  diamond,  reproducing  the  designs  from 
memory,  comparing  weights  and  lines,  describing  and  in- 
terpreting pictures,  aesthetic  comparison,  vocabulary,  dis- 
sected sentences,  fables,  reading  for  memories,  finding 
differences  and  similarities,  arithmetical  reasoning,  and  the 
form-board  test,  are  hardly  subject  to  report  at  all.  While 
almost  any  of  the  other  tests  might,  theoretically,  be  com- 
municated, there  is  little  danger  that  many  of  them  will 
be.  It  is  assumed,  of  course,  that  the  examiner  will  take 
proper  precautions  to  prevent  any  of  his  blanks  or  other 
materials  from  falling  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  to 
be  examined. 

The  following  tests  are  the  ones  most  subject  to  the  in- 
fluence of  coaching:  Ball  and  field,  giving  date,  naming 
sixty  words,  finding  rhymes,  changing  hands  of  clock, 
comprehension  of  physical  relations,  "  induction  test," 
and  "  ingenuity  test." 

In  several  instances  we  have  interviewed  children  an 
hour  or  two  after  they  had  taken  the  examination,  in  order 
to  find  out  how  many  of  the  tests  they  could  recall.  A  boy 
of  4  years,  after  repeated  questioning,  could  only  say: 
"  He  showed  me  some  pictures.  He  had  a  knife  and  a  penny. 
He  told  me  to  shut  the  door."  A  girl  of  3  years  could  recall 
nothing  whatever  that  was  intelligible. 

An  8-year-old  boy  said:  "He  made  me  tie  a  knot.  He 
asked  me  about  a  ship  and  an  auto.  He  wanted  me  to  count 
backwards.  He  made  me  say  over  some  things,  numbers 
and  things." 


112      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

A  boy  of  12  years  said:  "  He  told  me  to  say  all  the  words 
I  could  think  of.  He  said  some  foolish  things  and  asked 
what  was  foolish  [he  could  not  repeat  a  single  absurdity]. 
I  had  to  put  some  blocks  together.  I  had  to  do  some 
problems  in  arithmetic  [he  could  not  repeat  a  single  prob- 
lem]. He  read  some  fables  to  me.  [Asked  about  the  fables 
he  was  able  to  recall  only  part  of  one,  that  of  the  fox  and  the 
crow.]  He  showed  me  the  picture  of  a  field  and  wanted  to 
know  how  to  find  a  ball." 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  samples  of  report  that  the 
danger  of  coaching  increases  considerably  with  the  age  of 
the  children  concerned.  With  young  subjects  the  danger  is 
hardly  present  at  all;  with  children  of  the  upper-grammar 
grades,  in  the  high  school,  and  most  of  all  in  prisons  and 
reformatories,  it  must  be  taken  into  account.  Alternative 
tests  may  sometimes  be  used  to  advantage  when  there  is 
evidence  of  coaching  on  any  of  the  regular  tests.  It  would 
be  desirable  to  have  two  or  three  additional  scales  which 
could  be  used  interchangeably  with  the  Binet-Simon. 

Reliability  of  repeated  tests.  Will  the  same  tests  give 
consistent  results  when  used  repeatedly  with  the  same  sub- 
ject? In  general  we  may  say  that  they  do.  Something 
depends,  however,  on  the  age  and  intelligence  of  the  sub- 
ject and  on  the  time  interval  between  the  examinations. 

Goddard  proves  that  feeble-minded  individuals  whose 
intelligence  has  reached  its  full  development  continue  to 
test  at  exactly  the  same  mental  age  by  the  Binet  scale, 
year  after  year.  In  their  case,  familiarity  with  the  tests 
does  not  in  the  least  improve  the  responses.  At  each  re- 
testing  the  responses  given  at  previous  examinations  are 
repeated  with  only  the  most  trivial  variations.  Of  352 
feeble-minded  children  tested  at  Vineland,  three  years  in 
succession,  109  gave  absolutely  no  variation,  232  showed  a 
variation  of  not  more  than  two  fifths  of  a  year,  while  22 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  METHOD  113 

gained  as  much  as  one  year  in  the  three  tests.  The  latter, 
presumably,  were  younger  children  whose  intelligence  was 
still  developing. 

Goddard  has  also  tested  464  public-school  children  for 
three  successive  years.  Approximately  half  of  these  showed 
normal  progress  or  more  in  mental  age,  while  most  of  the 
remainder  showed  somewhat  less  than  normal  progress. 

Bobertag's  retesting  of  83  normal  children  after  an  in- 
terval of  a  year  gave  results  entirely  in  harmony  with 
those  of  Goddard.  The  reapplication  of  the  tests  showed 
absolutely  no  influence  of  familiarity,  the  correlation  of 
the  two  tests  being  almost  perfect  (.95).  Those  who  tested 
"  at  age  "  in  the  first  test  had  advanced,  on  the  average, 
exactly  one  year.  Those  who  tested  plus  in  the  first  test 
advanced  in  the  twelve  months  about  a  year  and  a  quarter, 
as  we  should  expect  those  to  do  whose  mental  development 
is  accelerated.  Correspondingly,  those  who  tested  minus 
at  the  first  test  advanced  only  about  three  fourths  of  a 
year  in  mental  age  during  the  interval.1 

Our  own  results  with  a  mixed  group  of  normal,  su- 
perior, dull,  and  feeble-minded  children  agree  fully  with  the 
above  findings.  In  this  case  the  two  tests  were  separated 
by  an  interval  of  two  to  four  years,  and  the  correlation 
between  their  results  was  practically  perfect.  The  average 
difference  between  the  I  Q  obtained  in  the  second  test  and 
that  obtained  in  the  first  was  only  4  per  cent,  and  the  great- 
est difference  found  was  only  8  per  cent.2 

The  repetition  of  the  test  at  shorter  intervals  will  per- 
haps affect  the  result  somewhat  more,  but  the  influence  is 
much  less  than  one  might  expect.  The  writer  has  tested,  at 

1  Otto  Bobertag:  "Ueber  Intelligenz  Prtlfungen,"  in  Zeitsch.  f.  Angew. 
Psychd.  (1912),  p.  521  ff. 

1  See  The  Stanford  Revision  and  Extension  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale  for 
Measuring  Intelligence.  (Warwick  and  York,  1916.) 


114       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

intervals  of  only  a  few  days  to  a  few  weeks,  14  backward 
children  of  12  to  18  years,  and  8  normal  children  of  5  to 
13  years.  The  backward  children  showed  an  average  im- 
provement in  the  second  test  of  about  two  months  in 
mental  age,  the  normal  children  an  average  improvement  of 
little  more  than  three  months.  No  child  varied  in  the 
second  test  more  than  half  a  year  from  the  mental  age  first 
secured.  On  the  whole,  normal  children  profit  more  from 
the  experience  of  a  previous  test  than  do  the  backward 
and  feeble-minded. 

Berry  tested  45  normal  children  and  50  defectives  with 
the  Binet  1908  and  1911  scales  at  brief  intervals.  The 
author  does  not  state  which  scale  was  applied  first,  but 
the  mental  ages  secured  by  the  two  scales  were  practically 
the  same  when  allowance  was  made  for  the  slightly  greater 
difficulty  of  the  1911  series  of  tests.1 

We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  while  it  would  proba- 
bly be  desirable  to  have  one  or  more  additional  scales  for 
alternative  use  in  testing  the  same  children  at  very  brief 
intervals,  the  same  scale  may  be  used  for  repeated  tests 
at  intervals  of  a  year  or  more  with  little  danger  of  serious 
inaccuracy.  Moreover,  results  like  those  set  forth  above  are 
important  evidence,  as  to  the  validity  of  the  test  method. 

Influence  of  social  and  educational  advantages.  The 
criticism  has  often  been  made  that  the  responses  to  many 
of  the  tests  are  so  much  subject  to  the  influence  of  school 
and  home  environment  as  seriously  to  invalidate  the  scale 
as  a  whole.  Some  of  the  tests  most  often  named  in  this 
connection  are  the  following:  Giving  age  and  sex;  naming 
common  objects,  colors,  and  coins;  giving  the  value  of 
stamps;  giving  date;  naming  the  months  of  the  year  and 
the  days  of  the  week;  distinguishing  forenoon  and  after- 

1  Charles  Scott  Berry:  "A  Comparison  of  the  Binet  Tests  of  1908  and 
1911,"  in  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  (1912),  pp.  444-51. 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  METHOD  115 

noon;  counting;  making  change;  reading  for  memories; 
naming  sixty  words;  giving  definitions;  finding  rhymes; 
and  constructing  a  sentence  containing  three  given  words. 

It  has  in  fact  been  found  wherever  comparisons  have 
been  made  that  children  of  superior  social  status  yield  a 
higher  average  mental  age  than  children  of  the  laboring 
classes.  The  results  of  Decroly  and  Degand  and  of  Meu- 
mann,  Stern,  and  Binet  himself  may  be  referred  to  in  this 
connection.  In  the  case  of  the  Stanford  investigation, 
also,  it  was  found  that  when  the  unselected  school  children 
were  grouped  in  three  classes  according  to  social  status 
(superior,  average,  and  inferior),  the  average  I  Q  for  the 
superior  social  group  was  107,  and  that  of  the  inferior  social 
group  93.  This  is  equivalent  to  a  difference  of  one  year  in 
mental  age  with  7-year-olds,  and  to  a  difference  of  two 
years  with  14-year-olds. 

However,  the  common  opinion  that  the  child  from  a  cul- 
tured home  does  better  in  tests  solely  by  reason  of  his  su- 
perior home  advantages  is  an  entirely  gratuitous  assump- 
tion. Practically  all  of  the  investigations  which  have  been 
made  of  the  influence  of  nature  and  nurture  on  mental 
performance  agree  in  attributing  far  more  to  original  en- 
dowment than  to  environment.  Common  observation  would 
itself  suggest  that  the  social  class  to  which  the  family 
belongs  depends  less  on  chance  than  on  the  parents'  native 
qualities  of  intellect  and  character. 

The  results  of  five  separate  and  distinct  lines  of  inquiry 
based  on  the  Stanford  data  agree  in  supporting  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  children  of  successful  and  cultured  parents  test 
higher  than  children  from  wretched  and  ignorant  homes 
for  the  simple  reason  that  their  heredity  is  better.  The  re- 
sults of  this  investigation  are  set  forth  in  full  elsewhere.1 

1  See  The  Stanford  Revision  and  Extension  of  tlie  Binel-Simon  Measuring 
Scale  of  Intelligence.  (Warwick  and  York,  1910.) 


116       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

It  would,  of  course,  be  going  too  far  to  deny  all  possibility 
of  environmental  conditions  affecting  the  result  of  an  in- 
telligence test.  Certainly  no  one  would  expect  that  a  child 
reared  in  a  cage  and  denied  all  intercourse  with  other  human 
beings  could  by  any  system  of  mental  measurement  test 
up  to  the  level  of  normal  children.  There  is,  however,  no 
reason  to  believe  that  ordinary  differences  in  social  en- 
vironment (apart  from  heredity),  differences  such  as  those 
obtaining  among  unselected  children  attending  approxi- 
mately the  same  general  type  of  school  in  a  civilized 
community,  affects  to  any  great  extent  the  validity  of  the 
scale. 

A  crucial  experiment  would  be  to  take  a  large  number  of 
very  young  children  of  the  lower  classes  and,  after  placing 
them  in  the  most  favorable  environment  obtainable,  to 
compare  their  later  mental  development  with  that  of  chil- 
dren born  into  the  best  homes.  No  extensive  study  of  this 
kind  has  been  made,  but  the  writer  has  tested  twenty  or- 
phanage children  who,  for  the  most  part,  had  come  from 
very  inferior  homes.  They  had  been  in  a  well-conducted 
orphanage  for  from  two  to  several  years,  and  had  enjoyed 
during  that  time  the  advantages  of  an  excellent  village 
school.  Nevertheless,  all  but  three  tested  below  average, 
ranging  from  75  to  90  I  Q. 

The  impotence  of  school  instruction  to  neutralize  indi- 
vidual differences  in  native  endowment  will  be  evident  to 
any  one  who  follows  the  school  career  of  backward  chil- 
dren. The  children  who  are  seriously  retarded  in  school 
are  not  normal,  and  cannot  be  made  normal  by  any  refine- 
ment of  educational  method.  As  a  rule,  the  longer  the 
inferior  child  attends  school,  the  more  evident  his  inferi- 
ority becomes.  It  would  hardly  be  reasonable,  therefore, 
to  expect  that  a  little  incidental  instruction  in  the  home 
would  weigh  very  heavily  against  these  same  native  differ- 


RELIABILITY  OF  THE  METHOD  117 

ences  in  endowment.    Cases  like  the  following  show  conclu- 
sively that  it  does  not :  — 

X  is  the  son  of  unusually  intelligent  and  well-educated  parents. 
The  home  is  everything  one  would  expect  of  people  of  scholarly 
pursuits  and  cultivated  tastes.  But  X  has  always  been  irresponsi- 
ble, troublesome,  childish,  and  queer.  He  learned  to  walk  at  2 
years,  to  talk  at  3,  and  has  always  been  delicate  and  nervous. 
When  brought  for  examination  he  was  8  years  old.  He  had  twice 
attempted  school  work,  but  could  accomplish  nothing  and  was 
withdrawn.  His  play-life  was  not  normal,  and  other  children, 
younger  than  himself,  abused  and  tormented  him.  The  Binet 
tests  gave  an  I  Q  of  approximately  75;  that  is,  the  retardation 
amounted  to  about  two  years.  The  child  was  examined  again 
three  years  later.  At  that  time,  after  attending  school  two  years, 
he  had  recently  completed  the  first  grade.  This  time  the  I  Q  was 
73.  Strange  to  say,  the  mother  is  encouraged  and  hopeful  because 
she  sees  that  her  boy  is  learning  to  read.  She  does  not  seem  to  real- 
ize that  at  his  age  he  ought  to  be  within  three  years  of  entering 
high  school. 

The  forty-minute  test  had  told  more  about  the  mental  ability 
of  this  boy  than  the  intelligent  mother  had  been  able  to  learn  in 
eleven  years  of  daily  and  hourly  observation.  For  X  is  feeble- 
minded; he  will  never  complete  the  grammar  school;  he  will  never 
be  an  efficient  worker  or  a  responsible  citizen. 

Let  us  change  the  picture.  Z  is  a  bright-eyed,  dark-skinned  girl 
of  9  years.  She  is  dark-skinned  because  her  father  is  a  mixture  of 
Indian  and  Spanish.  The  mother  is  of  Irish  descent.  With  her 
strangely  mated  parents  and  two  brothers  she  lives  in  a  dirty, 
cramped,  and  poorly  furnished  house  in  the  country.  The  parents 
are  illiterate,  and  the  brothers  are  retarded  and  dull,  though  not 
feeble-minded. 

It  is  Z's  turn  to  be  tested.  I  inquire  the  name.  It  is  familiar, 
for  I  have  already  tested  the  two  stupid  brothers.  I  also  know  her 
ignorant  parents  and  the  miserable  cabin  in  which  she  lives.  The 
examination  begins  with  the  8-year  tests.  The  responses  are 
quick  and  accurate.  We  proceed  to  the  9-year  group.  There  is  no 
failure,  and  there  is  but  one  minor  error.  Successes  and  failures 
alternate  for  a  while  until  the  latter  prevail.  Z  has  tested  at  11 
years.  In  spite  of  her  wretched  home,  she  is  mentally  advanced 
nearly  25  per  cent.  By  the  vocabulary  test  she  is  credited  with  a 


118       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

knowledge  of  nearly  6000  words,  or  nearly  four  times  as  many  as 
X,  the  boy  of  cultured  home  and  scholarly  parents,  had  learned  by 
the  age  of  8  years. 

Five  years  have  passed.  When  given  the  test,  Z  was  in  the 
fourth  grade  and,  as  we  have  already  stated,  9  years  of  age.  As 
a  result  of  the  test  she  was  transferred  to  the  fifth  grade.  Later 
she  skipped  again  and  at  the  age  of  14  is  a  successful  student  in 
the  second  year  of  high  school.  To  assay  her  intelligence  and  deter- 
mine its  quality  was  a  task  of  forty-five  minutes. 

The  above  cases,  each  of  which  could  be  paralleled  by 
many  others  which  we  have  found,  will  serve  to  illustrate 
the  fact  that  exceptionally  superior  endowment  is  dis- 
coverable by  the  tests,  however  unfavorable  the  home  from 
which  it  comes,  and  that  inferior  endowment  cannot  be 
normalized  by  all  the  advantages  of  the  most  cultured  home. 
Quoting  again  from  Stern,  "  The  tests  actually  reach  and 
discover  the  general  developmental  conditions  of  intelli- 
gence, and  not  mere  fragments  of  knowledge  and  attain- 
ments acquired  by  chance." 


PART   II 

GUIDE  FOR  THE  USE  OF  THE  STANFORD  REVISION 
AND  EXTENSION 


CHAPTER  VIII 

GENERAL  INSTRUCTIONS 

Necessity  of  securing  attention  and  effort.  The  child's 
intelligence  is  to  be  judged  by  his  success  in  the  performance 
of  certain  tasks.  These  tasks  may  appear  to  the  examiner 
to  be  very  easy,  indeed;  but  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  they 
are  often  anything  but  easy  for  the  child.  Real  effort 
and  attention  are  necessary  for  his  success,  and  occasion- 
ally even  his  best  efforts  fall  short  of  the  desired  result. 
If  the  tests  are  to  display  the  child's  real  intellectual  ability 
it  will  be  necessary,  therefore,  to  avoid  as  nearly  as  possible 
every  disturbing  factor  which  would  divide  his  attention 
or  in  any  other  way  injure  the  quality  of  his  responses.  To 
insure  this  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  somewhat  in 
detail  a  number  of  factors  which  influence  effort,  such  as 
degree  of  quiet,  the  nature  of  surroundings,  presence  or 
absence  of  others,  means  of  gaining  the  child's  confidence, 
the  avoidance  of  embarrassment,  fatigue,  etc. 

One  should  not  expect,  however,  to  secure  an  absolutely 
eqUal  degree  of  attention  from  all  subjects.  The  power  to 
give  sustained  attention  to  a  difficult  task  is  characteris- 
tically weak  in  dull  and  feeble-minded  children.  What  we 
should  labor  to  secure  is  the  maximum  attention  of  which 
the  child  is  capable,  and  if  this  is  unsatisfactory  without 
external  cause,  we  are  to  regard  the  fact  as  symptomatic 
of  inferior  mental  ability,  not  as  an  extenuating  factor  or 
an  excuse  for  lack  of  success  in  the  tests. 

Attention,  of  course,  cannot  be  normal  if  any  acute 


122      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

physical  or  mental  disturbance  is  present.  Toothache, 
headache,  earache,  nausea,  fever,  cold,  etc.,  all  render  the 
test  inadvisable.  The  same  is  true  of  mental  anxiety  or 
fear,  as  in  the  case  of  the  child  who  has  just  been  arrested 
and  brought  before  the  court. 

Quiet  and  seclusion.  The  tests  should  be  conducted  in  a 
quiet  room,  located  where  the  noises  of  the  street  and  other 
outside  distractions  cannot  enter.  A  reasonably  small  room 
is  better  than  a  very  large  one,  because  it  is  more  homelike. 
The  furnishings  of  the  room  should  be  simple.  A  table  and 
two  chairs  are  sufficient.  If  the  room  contains  a  number  of 
unfamiliar  objects,  such  as  psychological  apparatus,  pic- 
tures on  the  walls,  etc.,  the  attention  of  the  child  is  likely 
to  be  drawn  away  from  the  tasks  which  he  is  given  to  do. 
The  halls  and  corridors  which  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to 
use  in  testing  school  children  are  usually  noisy,  cold,  or 
otherwise  objectionable. 

Presence  of  others.  A  still  more  disturbing  influence  is 
the  presence  of  other  persons.  Generally  speaking,  if  ac- 
curate results  are  to  be  secured  it  is  not  permissible  to 
have  any  auditor,  besides  possibly  an  assistant  to  record 
the  responses.  Even  the  assistant,  however  quiet  and  unob- 
trusive, is  sometimes  a  disturbing  element.  Though  some- 
thing of  a  convenience,  the  assistant  is  by  no  means  neces- 
sary, after  the  examiner  has  thoroughly  mastered  the  pro- 
cedure of  the  tests  and  has  acquired  some  skill  in  the  use  of 
abbreviations  in  recording  the  answers.  If  an  assistant 
or  any  other  person  is  present,  he  should  be  seated  some- 
what behind  the  child,  not  too  close,  and  should  take  no 
notice  of  the  child  either  when  he  enters  the  room  or  at 
any  time  during  the  examination. 

At  all  events,  the  presence  of  parent,  teacher,  school 
principal,  or  governess  is  to  be  avoided.  Contrary  to  what 
one  might  expect,  these  distract  the  child  much  more  than 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  123 

a  strange  personality  would  do.  Their  critical  attitude 
toward  the  child's  performance  is  very  likely  to  cause  em- 
barrassment. If  the  child  is  alone  with  the  examiner,  he 
is  more  at  ease  from  the  mere  fact  that  he  does  not  feel 
that  there  is  a  reputation  to  sustain.  The  praise  so  lavishly 
bestowed  upon  him  by  the  friendly  and  sympathetic  ex- 
aminer lends  to  the  same  effect. 

As  Binet  emphasizes,  if  the  presence  of  others  cannot  be 
avoided,  it  is  at  least  necessary  to  require  of  them  absolute 
silence.  Parents,  and  sometimes  teachers,  have  an  almost 
irrepressible  tendency  to  interrupt  the  examination  with 
excuses  for  the  child's  failures  and  with  disturbing  explana- 
tions which  are  likely  to  aid  the  child  in  comprehending  the 
required  task.  Without  the  least  intention  of  doing  so, 
they  sometimes  practically  tell  the  child  how  to  respond. 
Parents,  especially,  cannot  refrain  from  scolding  the  child 
or  showing  impatience  when  his  answers  do  not  come  up 
to  expectation.  This,  of  course,  endangers  the  child's 
success  still  further. 

The  psychologist  is  not  surprised  at  such  conduct.  It 
would  be  foolish  to  expect  average  parents,  even  apart 
from  their  bias  in  the  particular  case  at  hand,  to  adopt  the 
scientific  attitude  of  the  trained  examiner.  Since  we  cannot 
in  a  few  moments  at  our  disposal  make  them  over  into 
psychologists,  our  only  recourse  is  to  deal  with  them  by 
exclusion. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  it  is  impossible  to  test  a  child 
satisfactorily  in  the  presence  of  others.  If  the  examiner  is 
experienced,  and  if  the  child  is  not  timid,  it  is  sometimes 
possible  to  make  a  successful  test  in  the  presence  of  quite 
a  number  of  auditors,  provided  they  remain  silent,  refrain 
from  staring,  and  otherwise  conduct  themselves  with  dis- 
cretion. But  not  even  the  veteran  examiner  can  always  be 
sure  of  the  outcome  in  demonstration  testing. 


124      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Getting  into  "rapport."  The  examiner's  first  task  is  to 
win  the  confidence  of  the  child  and  overcome  his  timidity. 
Unless  rapport  has  first  been  established,  the  results  of  the 
first  tests  given  are  likely  to  be  misleading.  The  time  and 
effort  necessary  for  accomplishing  this  are  variable  factors, 
depending  upon  the  personality  of  both  the  examiner  and 
the  subject.  In  a  majority  of  cases  from  three  to  five  min- 
utes should  be  sufficient,  but  in  a  few  cases  somewhat 
more  time  is  necessary. 

The  writer  has  found  that  when  a  strange  child  is  brought 
to  the  clinic  for  examination,  it  is  advantageous  to  go  out 
of  doors  with  him  for  a  little  walk  around  the  university 
buildings.  It  is  usually  possible  to  return  from  such  a  stroll 
in  a  few  minutes,  with  the  child  chattering  away  as  though 
to  an  old  friend.  Another  approach  is  to  begin  by  showing 
the  child  some  interesting  object,  such  as  a  toy,  or  a  form- 
board,  or  pictures  not  used  in  the  test.  The  only  danger  in 
this  method  is  that  the  child  is  likely  to  find  the  object  so 
interesting  that  he  may  not  be  willing  to  abandon  it  for  the 
tests,  or  that  his  mind  will  keep  reverting  to  it  during  the 
examination. 

Still  another  method  is  to  give  the  child  his  seat  as  soon 
as  he  is  ushered  into  the  room,  and,  after  a  word  of  greeting, 
which  must  be  spoken  in  a  kindly  tone  but  without  gushi- 
ness,  to  open  up  a  conversation  about  matters  likely  to  be 
of  interest.  The  weather,  place  of  residence,  pets,  sports, 
games,  toys,  travels,  current  events,  etc.,  are  suitable  topics 
if  rightly  employed.  When  the  child  has  begun  to  express 
himself  without  timidity  and  it  is  clear  that  his  confidence 
has  been  gained,  one  may  proceed,  as  though  in  continu- 
ance of  the  conversation,  to  inquire  the  name,  age,  and 
school  grade.  The  examiner  notes  these  down  in  the  ap- 
propriate blanks,  rather  unconcernedly,  at  the  same  time 
complimenting  the  child  (unless  it  is  clearly  a  case  of  serious 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  125 

retardation)  on  the  fine  progress  he  has  made  with  his 
studies. 

Keeping  the  child  encouraged.  Nothing  contributes 
more  to  a  satisfactory  rapport  than  praise  of  the  child's 
efforts.  Under  no  circumstances  should  the  examiner  permit 
himself  to  show  displeasure  at  a  response,  however  absurd 
it  may  be.  In  general,  the  poorer  the  response,  the  better 
satisfied  one  should  appear  to  be  with  it.  An  error  is  al- 
ways to  be  passed  by  without  comment,  unless  it  is  pain- 
fully evident  to  the  child  himself,  in  which  case  the  ex- 
aminer will  do  well  to  make  some  excuse  for  it;  e.g.,  "  You 
are  not  quite  old  enough  to  answer  questions  like  that  one; 
but,  never  mind,  you  are  doing  beautifully,"  etc.  Ex- 
clamations like  "  fine!  "  "  splendid!  "  etc.,  should  be  used 
lavishly.  Almost  any  innocent  deception  is  permissible 
which  keeps  the  child  interested,  confident,  and  at  his  best 
level  of  effort.  The  examination  should  begin  with  tests 
that  are  fairly  easy,  in  order  to  give  the  child  a  little 
experience  with  success  before  the  more  difficult  tests  are 
reached. 

The  importance  of  tact.  It  goes  without  saying  that  chil- 
dren's personalities  are  not  so  uniform  and  simple  that  we 
can  adhere  always  to  a  single  stereotyped  procedure  in 
working  our  way  into  their  good  graces.  Suggestions  like 
the  above  have  their  value,  but,  like  rules  of  etiquette, 
they  must  be  supported  by  the  tact  which  comes  of  intui- 
tion and  cannot  be  taught.  The  address  which  flatters  and 
pleases  one  child  may  excite  disgust  in  another.  The  ex- 
aminer must  scent  the  situation  and  adapt  his  method  to 
it.  One  child  is  timid  and  embarrassed;  another  may  think 
his  mental  powers  are  under  suspicion  and  so  react  with 
s,ullen  obstinacy;  a  third  may  be  in  an  angry  mood  as  a 
result  of  a  recent  playground  quarrel.  Situations  like  these 
are,  of  course,  exceptional,  but  in  any  case  it  is  necessary 


126      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

to  create  in  the  child  a  certain  mood,  or  indefinable  atti- 
tude of  mind,  before  the  test  begins. 

Personality  of  the  examiner.  Doubtless  there  are  persons 
so  lacking  in  personal  adaptability  that  success  in  this 
kind  of  work  would  be  for  them  impossible.  The  wooden, 
mechanical,  matter-of-fact  and  unresponsive  personality 
is  as  much  out  of  place  in  the  psychological  clinic  as  the 
traditional  bull  in  the  china  shop.  It  would  make  an  in- 
teresting study  for  some  one  to  investigate,  by  exact  meth- 
ods, the  influence  on  test  results  of  the  personality  of  dif- 
ferent examiners  who  have  been  equally  trained  in  the 
methods  to  be  employed  and  who  are  equally  conscientious 
in  applying  them  according  to  rules. 

On  the  whole,  differences  of  this  kind  are  probably  not 
very  great  among  experienced  and  reasonably  competent 
examiners.  Adaptability  grows  with  experience  and  with 
increase  of  self-confidence.  After  a  few  score  tests  there 
should  be  no  serious  failure  from  inability  to  get  into  rap- 
port with  the  child.  Even  in  those  rare  cases  where  the  child 
breaks  down  and  cries  from  timidity,  or  perhaps  refuses  to 
answer  out  of  embarrassment,  the  difficulty  can  be  over- 
come by  sufficient  tact  so  that  the  examination  may  pro- 
ceed as  though  nothing  had  happened. 

If  the  examiner  has  the  proper  psychological  and  personal 
equipment,  the  testing  of  twenty  or  thirty  children  forms  a 
fairly  satisfactory  apprenticeship.  Without  psychological 
training,  no  amount  of  experience  will  guarantee  absolute 
accuracy  of  the  results. 

The  avoidance  of  fatigue.  Against  the  validity  of  in- 
telligence tests  it  is  often  argued  that  the  result  of  an  ex- 
amination depends  a  great  deal  on  the  time  of  day  when  it 
is  made,  whether  in  the  morning  hours  when  the  mind  is  at 
its  best,  or  in  the  afternoon  when  it  is  supposedly  fatigued. 
Although  no  very  extensive  investigation  has  been  made  of 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  127 

this  influence,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  ordinary  fatigue 
incident  to  school  work  injures  the  child's  performance 
appreciably.  Our  tests  of  1000  children  showed  no  in- 
feriority of  results  secured  from  1  to  4  P.M.,  as  compared 
with  tests  made  from  9  to  12  A.M. 

An  explanation  for  this  is  not  hard  to  find.  Although 
school  work  causes  fatigue,  in  the  sense  that  a  part  of  the 
child's  available  supply  of  mental  energy  is  used  up, 
there  is  always  a  reserve  of  energy  sufficient  to  carry  the 
child  through  a  thirty-  to  fifty-minute  test.  The  fact  that 
the  required  tasks  are  novel  and  interesting  to  a  high  degree 
insures  that  the  reserve  energy  will  really  be  brought  into 
play.  This  principle,  of  course,  has  its  natural  limits.  The 
examiner  would  avoid  testing  a  child  who  was  exhausted 
either  from  work  or  play,  or  a  child  who  was  noticeably 
sleepy. 

Duration  of  the  examination.  About  the  only  danger  of 
fatigue  lies  hi  making  the  examination  too  long.  Young 
children  show  symptoms  of  weariness  much  more  quickly 
than  older  children,  and  it  is  therefore  fortunate  that  not 
so  much  time  is  needed  for  testing  them.  The  following 
allowances  of  time  will  usually  be  found  sufficient:  — 

Children    8-5    years  old 25-30  minutes 

"          6-8       "      "       30-40 

9-12     "      "       40-50       " 

13-15      "      "       50-60 

Adults 60-90 

This  allowance  ordinarily  includes  the  time  necessary 
for  getting  into  rapport  with  the  child,  in  addition  to  that 
actually  consumed  in  the  tests.  But  the  examiner  need  not 
expect  to  hold  fast  to  any  schedule.  Some  subjects  respond 
in  a  lively  manner,  others  are  exasperatingly  slow.  It  is 
more  often  the  mentally  retarded  child  who  answers  slowly, 
but  exceptions  to  this  rule  are  not  uncommon.  One  8-year- 


128      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

old  boy  examined  by  the  writer  answered  so  hesitatingly 
that  it  required  two  sittings  of  nearly  an  hour  each  to  com- 
plete the  test.  The  result,  however,  showed  a  mental  age 
of  11^2  years,  or  an  I  Q  of  143. 

It  is  permissible  to  hurry  the  child  by  an  occasional 
"  that's  fine;  now,  quickly,"  etc.,  but  in  doing  this  caution 
must  be  exercised,  or  the  child's  mental  process  may  be 
blocked.  The  appearance  of  nagging  must  be  carefully 
avoided.  If  the  test  goes  so  slowly  that  it  cannot  be  com- 
pleted in  the  above  limits  of  time,  it  is  usually  best  to  stop 
and  complete  the  examination  at  another  time.  When  this 
is  not  possible,  it  is  advisable  to  take  a  ten-minute  inter- 
mission and  a  little  walk  out  of  doors. 

Time  can  be  saved  by  having  all  the  necessary  materials 
close  at  hand  and  conveniently  arranged.  The  coins  should 
be  kept  in  a  separate  purse,  and  the  pictures,  colors,  stamps, 
and  designs  for  drawing  should  be  mounted  on  stiff  card- 
board, which  may  be  punched  and  kept  in  a  notebook  cover. 
The  series  of  sentences,  digits,  comprehension  questions, 
fables,  etc.,  should  either  be  mounted  in  similar  fashion, 
or  else  printed  in  full  on  the  record  sheets  used  in  the  tests. 
The  latter  is  more  convenient.1  All  other  materials  should 
be  kept  where  they  will  not  have  to  be  hunted  for. 

Besides  saving  valuable  time,  a  little  methodical  fore- 
sight of  this  kind  adds  to  the  success  of  the  test.  If  the  child 
is  kept  waiting,  the  test  loses  its  interest  and  attention 

1  Examiners  will  find  it  a  great  convenience  to  use  the  record  booklet 
which  has  been  specially  devised  for  testing  with  the  Stanford  revision.  It 
contains  all  the  necessary  printed  material,  including  digits,  sentences,  ab- 
surdities, fables,  the  vocabulary  list,  the  reading  selection,  the  square  and 
diamond  for  copying,  etc.,  and  in  addition  gives  with  each  test  the  stand- 
ard for  scoring.  It  is  so  arranged  as  to  afford  ample  room  for  a  verbatim 
record  of  all  the  child's  responses,  and  contains  other  features  calculated 
to  make  testing  easy  and  accurate.  Regarding  purchasing  of  supplies  see 
p.  141. 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  129 

strays.  See  to  it,  if  possible,  that  no  lull  occurs  in  the  per- 
formance. 

Inexperienced  examiners  sometimes  waste  time  foolishly 
by  stopping  to  instruct  the  child  on  his  failures.  This  is 
doubly  bad,  for  besides  losing  time  it  makes  the  child  con- 
scious of  the  imperfection  of  his  responses  and  creates  em- 
barrassment. Adhere  to  the  purpose  of  the  test,  which  is  to 
ascertain  the  child's  intellectual  level,  not  to  instruct  him. 

Desirable  range  of  testing.  There  are  two  considerations 
here  of  equal  importance.  It  is  necessary  to  make  the  ex- 
amination thorough,  but  in  the  pursuit  of  thoroughness  we 
must  be  careful  not  to  produce  fatigue  or  ennui.  Unless 
there  is  reason  to  suspect  mental  retardation,  it  is  usually 
best  to  begin  with  the  group  of  tests  just  below  the  child's 
age.  However,  if  there  is  a  failure  in  the  tests  of  that  group, 
it  is  necessary  to  go  back  and  try  all  the  tests  of  the  pre- 
vious group.  In  like  manner  the  examination  should  be 
carried  up  the  scale,  until  a  test  group  has  been  found  in 
which  all  the  tests  are  failed. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  because  of  time  limita- 
tions and  fatigue,  it  is  not  always  practicable  to  adhere  to 
this  ideal  of  thoroughness.  In  testing  normal  children,  little 
error  will  result  if  we  go  back  no  farther  than  the  year  which 
yielded  only  one  failure,  and  if  we  stop  with  the  year  in 
which  there  was  only  one  success.  This  is  the  lowest  permis- 
sible limit  of  thoroughness.  Defectives  are  more  uneven 
mentally  than  normal  children,  and  therefore  scatter  their 
successes  and  failures  over  a  wider  range.  With  such  sub- 
jects it  is  absolutely  imperative  that  the  test  be  thorough. 

In  the  case  of  defectives  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to  be- 
gin with  random  testing,  until  a  rough  idea  is  gained  of  the 
mental  level.  But  the  skilled  observer  soon  becomes  able  to 
utilize  symptoms  in  the  child's  conversation  and  conduct 
and  to  dispense  with  most  of  this  preliminary  exploration. 


130      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Order  of  giving  the  tests.  The  child's  efforts  in  the  tests 
are  sometimes  markedly  influenced  by  the  order  in  which 
they  are  given.  If  language  tests  or  memory  tests  are  given 
first,  the  child  is  likely  to  be  embarrassed.  More  suitable 
to  begin  with  are  those  which  test  knowledge  or  judg- 
ment about  objective  things,  such  as  the  pictures,  weights, 
stamps,  bow-knot,  colors,  coins,  counting  pennies,  number 
of  fingers,  right  and  left,  time  orientation,  ball  and  field, 
paper-folding,  etc.  Tests  like  naming  sixty  words,  finding 
rhymes,  giving  differences  or  similarities,  making  sentences, 
repeating  sentences,  and  drawing  are  especially  unsuitable 
because  they  tend  to  provoke  self -consciousness. 

The  tests  as  arranged  in  this  revision  are  in  the  order 
which  it  is  usually  best  to  follow,  but  one  should  not  hesi- 
tate to  depart  from  the  order  given  when  it  seems  best  in 
a  given  case  to  do  so.  It  is  necessary  to  be  constantly  alert 
so  that  when  the  child  shows  a  tendency  to  balk  at  a  given 
type  of  test,  such  as  those  of  memory,  language,  numbers, 
drawing,  "  comprehension,"  etc.,  the  work  can  be  shifted 
to  more  agreeable  tasks.  When  the  child  is  at  his  ease 
again,  it  is  usually  possible  to  return  to  the  troublesome 
tests  with  better  success.  In  the  case  of  8-year-old  D.  C., 
who  is  a  speech  defective  but  otherwise  above  normal,  it 
was  quite  impossible  at  the  first  sitting  to  give  such  tests 
as  sentence-making,  naming  sixty  words,  reading,  repeating 
sentences,  giving  definitions,  etc.;  at  each  test  of  this  type 
the  child's  voice  broke  and  he  was  ready  to  cry,  due,  no 
doubt,  to  sensitiveness  regarding  his  speech  defect.  Others 
do  everything  willingly  except  the  drawing  and  copying. 
The  younger  children  sometimes  refuse  to  repeat  the  sen- 
tences or  digits.  In  all  such  cases  it  is  best  to  pass  on  to 
something  else.  After  a  few  minutes  the  rejected  task  may 
be  done  willingly. 

Coaxing  to  be  avoided.    Although  we  should  always 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  131 

encourage  the  child  to  believe  that  he  can  answer  cor- 
rectly, if  he  will  only  try,  we  must  avoid  the  common 
practice  of  dragging  out  responses  by  too  much  urging  and 
coaxing.  The  sympathies  of  the  examiner  tend  to  lead 
him  into  the  habit  of  repeating  and  explaining  the  question 
if  the  child  does  not  answer  promptly.  This  is  nearly  always 
a  mistake,  for  the  question  is  one  which  should  be  under- 
stood. Besides,  explanations  and  coaxing  are  too  often 
equivalent  to  answering  the  question  for  the  child.  It  is 
almost  impossible  to  impress  this  danger  sufficiently  upon 
the  untrained  examiner.  One  who  is  not  familiar  with  the 
psychology  of  suggestion  may  put  the  answer  in  the  child's 
mouth  without  suspecting  what  he  is  doing. 

Adhering  to  formula.  It  cannot  be  too  strongly  empha- 
sized that  unless  we  follow  a  standardized  procedure  the 
tests  lose  their  significance.  The  danger  is  cliiefly  that  of 
unintentionally  and  unconsciously  introducing  variations 
which  will  affect  the  meaning  of  the  test.  One  who  has 
not  had  a  thorough  training  in  the  methods  of  mental 
testing  cannot  appreciate  how  numerous  are  the  opportu- 
nities for  the  unconscious  transformation  of  a  test.  Many 
of  these  are  pointed  out  in  the  description  of  the  individ- 
ual tests,  but  it  would  be  folly  to  undertake  to  warn  the 
experimenter  against  every  possible  error  of  this  kind.  Some- 
times the  omission  or  the  addition  of  a  single  phrase  in 
giving  the  test  will  alter  materially  the  significance  of  the 
response.  Only  the  trained  psychologist  can  vary  the  for- 
mula without  risk  of  invalidating  the  result,  and  even  he 
must  be  on  his  guard.  All  sorts  of  misunderstandings  re- 
garding the  correct  placing  of  tests  and  regarding  their 
accuracy  or  inaccuracy  have  come  about  through  the  failure 
of  different  investigators  to  follow  the  same  procedure. 

One  who  would  use  the  tests  for  any  serious  purpose, 
therefore,  must  study  the  procedure  for  each  and  every 


132      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

test  until  he  knows  it  thoroughly.  After  that  a  consid- 
erable amount  of  practice  is  necessary  before  one  learns  to 
avoid  slips.  During  the  early  stages  of  practice  it  is  neces- 
sary to  refer  to  the  printed  instructions  frequently  in  order 
to  check  up  errors  before  they  have  become  habitual. 

The  instructions  hitherto  available  are  at  fault  in  not 
defining  the  procedure  with  sufficient  definiteness,  and  it 
is  the  purpose  of  this  volume  to  make  good  this  deficiency 
as  far  as  possible. 

It  is  too  much,  however,  to  suppose  that  the  instructions 
can  be  made  "  fool-proof."  With  whatever  definiteness 
they  may  be  set  forth,  situations  are  sure  to  arise  which 
the  examiner  cannot  be  formally  prepared  for.  There  is 
no  limit  to  the  multitude  of  misunderstandings  possible. 
After  testing  hundreds  of  children  one  still  finds  new  ex- 
amples of  misapprehension.  In  a  few  such  cases  the  in- 
struction may  be  repeated,  if  there  is  reason  to  think  the 
child's  hearing  was  at  fault  or  if  some  extraordinary  dis- 
traction has  occurred.  But  unless  otherwise  stated  in  the 
directions,  the  repetition  of  a  question  is  ordinarily  to  be 
avoided.  Supplementary  explanations  are  hardly  ever 
permissible. 

In  short,  numberless  situations  may  arise  in  the  use  of  a 
test  which  may  injure  the  validity  of  the  response,  events 
which  cannot  always  be  dealt  with  by  preconceived  rule. 
Accordingly,  although  we  must  urge  unceasingly  the  im- 
portance of  following  the  standard  procedure,  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  formulas  are  an  adequate  substitute 
either  for  scientific  judgment  or  for  common  sense. 

Scoring.  The  exact  method  of  scoring  the  individual 
tests  is  set  forth  in  the  following  chapters.  Reference  to 
the  record  booklet  for  use  in  testing  will  show  that  the 
records  are  to  be  kept  in  detail.  Each  subdivision  of  a  test 
should  be  scored  separately,  in  order  that  the  clinical  pic- 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  133 

ture  may  be  as  complete  as  possible.  This  helps  in  the  final 
evaluation  of  the  results.  It  makes  much  difference,  for 
example,  whether  success  in  repeating  six  digits  is  earned  by 
repeating  all  three  correctly  or  only  one;  or  whether  the 
child's  lack  of  success  with  the  absurdities  is  due  to  failure 
on  two,  three,  four,  or  all  of  them.  Time  should  be  re- 
corded whenever  called  for  in  the  record  blanks. 

Recording  responses.  Plus  and  minus  signs  alone  are 
not  usually  sufficient.  Whenever  possible  the  entire  re- 
sponse should  be  recorded.  If  the  test  results  are  to  be  used 
by  any  other  person  than  the  examiner,  this  is  absolutely 
essential.  Any  other  standard  of  completeness  opens  the 
door  to  carelessness  and  inaccuracy.  In  nearly  all  the  tests, 
except  that  of  naming  sixty  words,  the  examiner  will  find 
it  possible  by  the  liberal  use  of  abbreviations  to  record 
practically  the  entire  response  verbatim.  In  doing  so, 
however,  one  must  be  careful  to  avoid  keeping  the  child 
waiting.  Occasionally  it  is  necessary  to  leave  off  recording 
altogether  because  of  the  embarrassment  sometimes  aroused 
in  the  child  by  seeing  his  answer  written  down.  The  writer 
has  met  the  latter  difficulty  several  times.  When  for  any 
reason  it  is  not  feasible  to  record  anything  more  than  score 
marks,  success  may  be  indicated  by  the  sign  +,  failure  by 
— ,  and  half  credit  by  ^.  An  exceptionally  good  response 
may  be  indicated  by  +  +  ,  and  an  exceptionally  poor  re- 
sponse by  -  — .  If  there  is  a  slight  doubt  about  a  success 
or  failure  the  sign  ?  may  be  added  to  the  +  or  — .  In 
general,  however,  score  the  response  either  +  or  — ,  avoid- 
ing half  credit  as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  do  so. 

If  the  entire  response  is  not  recorded  it  is  necessary  to 
record  at  least  the  score  mark  for  each  test  when  the  test 
is  given.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  scoring  is 
not  a  purely  mechanical  affair.  Instead,  the  judgment  of 
the  examiner  must  come  into  play  with  every  record  made. 


134      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

If  the  scoring  is  delayed,  there  is  not  only  the  danger  of 
forgetting  a  response,  but  the  judgment  is  likely  to  be 
influenced  by  the  subject's  responses  to  succeeding  ques- 
tions. Our  special  record  booklet  contains  wide  margins, 
so  that  extended  notes  and  observations  regarding  the 
child's  responses  and  behavior  can  be  recorded  as  the  test 
proceeds. 

Scattering  of  successes.  It  is  sometimes  a  source  of  con- 
cern to  the  untrained  examiner  that  the  successes  and  fail- 
ures should  be  scattered  over  quite  an  extensive  range  of 
years.  Why,  it  may  be  asked,  should  not  a  child  who  has 
10-year  intelligence  answer  correctly  all  the  tests  up  to  and 
including  group  X,  and  fail  on  all  the  tests  beyond?  There 
are  two  reasons  why  such  is  almost  never  the  case.  In  the 
first  place,  the  intelligence  of  an  individual  is  ordinarily 
not  even.  There  are  many  different  kinds  of  intelligence, 
and  in  some  of  these  the  subject  is  better  endowed  than 
in  others.  A  second  reason  lies  in  the  fact  that  no  test  can 
be  purely  and  simply  a  test  of  native  intelligence.  Given 
a  certain  degree  of  intelligence,  accidents  of  experience 
and  training  bring  it  about  that  this  intelligence  will  work 
more  successfully  with  some  kinds  of  material  than  with 
others.  For  both  of  these  reasons  there  results  a  scattering 
of  successes  and  failures  over  three  or  four  years.  The 
subject  fails  first  in  one  or  two  tests  of  a  group,  then  in 
two  or  three  tests  of  the  following  group,  the  number  of 
failures  increasing  until  there  are  no  successes  at  all. 
Success  "  tapers  off  "  from  100  per  cent  to  0.  Once  in  a 
great  while  a  child  fails  on  several  of  the  tests  of  a  given 
year  and  succeeds  with  a  majority  of  those  in  the  next 
higher  year.  This  is  only  an  extreme  instance  of  uneven 
intelligence  or  of  specialized  experience,  and  does  not  neces- 
sarily reflect  upon  the  reliability  of  the  tests  for  children 
in  general.  The  method  of  calculation  given  above  strikes 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  135 

a  kind  of  average  and  gives  the  general  level  of  intelligence, 
which  is  essentially  the  thing  we  want  to  know. 

Supplementary  considerations.  It  would  be  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  any  set  of  mental  tests  could  be  devised  which 
would  give  us  complete  information  about  a  child's  native 
intelligence.  There  are  no  tests  which  are  absolutely  pure 
tests  of  intelligence.  All  are  influenced  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  also  by  training  and  by  social  environment.  For 
this  reason,  all  the  ascertainable  facts  bearing  on  such 
influences  should  be  added  to  the  record  of  the  mental 
examination,  and  should  be  given  due  weight  in  reaching  a 
final  conclusion  as  to  the  level  of  intelligence. 

The  following  supplementary  information  should  be 
gathered,  when  possible:  — 

1.  Social  status  (very  superior,  superior,  average,  inferior,  or 
very  inferior). 

2.  The  teacher's  estimate  of  the  child's  intelligence  (very  su- 
perior, superior,  average,  inferior,  or  very  inferior). 

3.  School  opportunities,  including  years  of  attendance,  regu- 
larity, retardation  or  acceleration,  etc. 

4.  Quality  of  school  work  (very  superior,  superior,  average,  in- 
ferior, or  very  inferior). 

5.  Physical  handicaps,  if  any  (adenoids,  diseased  tonsils,  partial 
deafness,  imperfect  vision,  malnutrition,  etc.). 

In  addition,  the  examiner  will  need  to  take  account  of 
the  general  attitude  of  the  child  during  the  examination. 
This  is  provided  for  in  the  record  blanks  under  the  heading 
"  comments."  The  comments  should  describe  as  fully  as 
possible  the  conduct  and  attitude  of  the  child  during  the 
examination,  with  emphasis  upon  such  disturbing  factors 
as  fear,  timidity,  unwillingness  to  answer,  over-confidence, 
carelessness,  lack  of  attention,  etc.  Sometimes,  also,  it  is 
desirable  to  verify  the  child's  age  and  to  make  record  of 
the  verification. 


136      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Once  more  let  it  be  urged  that  no  degree  of  mechanical 
perfection  of  the  tests  can  ever  take  the  place  of  good 
judgment  and  psychological  insight.  Intelligence  is  too 
complicated  to  be  weighed,  like  a  bag  of  grain,  by  any  one 
who  can  read  figures. 

Alternative  tests.  The  tests  designated  as  "  alternative 
tests  "  are  not  intended  for  regular  use.  Inasmuch  as  they 
have  been  standardized  and  belong  in  the  year  group 
where  they  are  placed,  they  may  be  used  as  substitute 
tests  on  certain  occasions.  Sometimes  one  of  the  regular 
tests  is  spoiled  in  giving  it,  or  the  requisite  material  for  it 
may  not  be  at  hand.  Sometimes  there  may  be  reason  to 
suspect  that  the  subject  has  become  acquainted  with  some 
of  the  tests.  In  such  cases  it  is  a  great  convenience  to  have 
a  few  substitutes  available. 

It  is  necessary,  however,  to  warn  against  a  possible 
misuse  of  alternative  tests.  It  is  not  permissible  to  count 
success  in  an  alternative  test  as  offsetting  failure  in  a  regular 
test.  This  would  give  the  subject  too  much  leeway  of 
failure.  There  are  very  exceptional  cases,  however,  when  it 
is  legitimate  to  break  this  rule;  namely,  when  one  of  the 
regular  tests  would  be  obviously  unfair  to  the  subject  being 
tested.  In  year  X,  for  example,  one  of  the  three  alternative 
tests  should  be  substituted  for  the  reading  test  (X,  4)  in 
case  we  are  testing  a  subject  who  has  not  had  the  equivalent 
of  at  least  two  years  of  school  work.  In  year  VIII,  it  would 
be  permissible  to  substitute  the  alternative  test  of  naming 
six  coins,  instead  of  the  vocabulary  test,  in  the  case  of  a  sub- 
ject who  came  from  a  home  where  English  was  not  spoken. 
In  VII,  it  would  perhaps  not  be  unfair  to  substitute  the 
alternative  test,  in  place  of  the  test  of  copying  a  diamond, 
in  the  case  of  a  subject  who,  because  of  timidity  or  em- 
barrassment, refused  to  attempt  the  diamond.  But  it 
would  be  going  entirely  too  far  to  substitute  an  alter- 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  137 

native  test  in  the  place  of  every  regular  test  which  the 
subject  responded  to  by  silence.  In  the  large  majority  of 
cases  persistent  silence  deserves  to  be  scored  failure. 

Certain  tests  have  been  made  alternatives  because  of 
their  inferior  value,  some  because  the  presence  of  other 
tests  of  similar  nature  in  the  same  year  rendered  them  less 
necessary. 

Finding  mental  age.  As  there  are  six  tests  in  each  age 
group  from  III  to  X,  each  test  in  this  part  of  the  scale 
counts  2  months  toward  mental  age.  There  are  eight  tests 
in  group  XII,  which,  because  of  the  omission  of  the  11- 
year  group,  have  a  combined  value  of  24  months,  or  3 
months  each.  Similarly,  each  of  the  six  tests  in  XIV  has 
a  value  of  4  months  (24  -f-  6  =  4).  The  tests  of  the  "  aver- 
age adult "  group  are  given  a  value  of  5  months  each, 
and  those  of  the  "  superior  adult  "  group  a  value  of  6 
months  each.  These  values  are  in  a  sense  arbitrary,  but 
they  are  justified  in  the  fact  that  they  are  such  as 
to  cause  ordinary  adults  to  test  at  the  "average  adult" 
level. 

The  calculation  of  mental  age  is  therefore  simplicity 
itself.  The  rule  is:  (1)  Credit  the  subject  with  all  the  tests 
below  the  point  where  the  examination  begins  (remembering 
that  the  examination  goes  back  until  a  year  group  has  been 
found  in  which  all  the  tests  are  passed);  and  (2)  add  to 
this  basal  credit  2  months  for  each  test  passed  successfully 
up  to  and  including  year  X,  3  months  for  each  test  passed 
in  XII,  4  months  for  each  test  passed  in  XIV,  5  months 
for  each  success  in  "  average  adult,"  and  6  months  for 
each  success  in  "  superior  adult." 

For  example,  let  us  suppose  that  a  child  passes  all  the 
tests  in  VI,  five  of  the  six  tests  in  VII,  three  in  VIII,  two 
in  IX,  and  one  in  X.  The  total  credit  earned  is  as 
follows :  — 


138      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Years  Months 

Credit  presupposed,  years  I  to  V 5 

Credit  earned  in  VI,  6  tests  passed,  2  months  each    .    .  1 
Credit  earned  in  VII,  5  tests  passed,  2  months  each  .   .  10 

Credit  earned  in  VIII,  3  tests  passed,  2  months  each  .   .  6 

Credit  earned  in  IX,  2  tests  passed,  2  months  each   .   .  4 

Credit  earned  in  X,  1  test  passed,  2  months 2 

Total  credit    .  .  7        10 


Taking  a  subject  who  tests  higher,  let  us  suppose  the 
following  tests  are  passed :  All  in  X,  six  of  the  eight  in  XII, 
two  of  the  six  in  XIV,  and  one  of  the  six  in  "  average 
adult."  The  total  credit  is  as  follows:  — 

Years  Months 

Credit  presupposed,  years  I  to  IX 9 

Credit  earned  in  X,  6  tests  passed,  2  months  each       .   1 
Credit  earned  in  XII,  6  tests  passed,  3  months  each  .    .   1          6 
Credit  earned  in  XIV,  2  tests  passed,  4  months  each  .    .   0          8 
Credit  earned  in  "average  adult,"  1  success,  5  months  .  5 

Total  credit 12          7 

One  other  point:  If  one  or  more  tests  of  a  year  group  have 
been  omitted,  as  sometimes  happens  either  from  oversight 
or  lack  of  time,  the  question  arises  how  the  tests  which 
were  given  in  such  a  year  group  should  be  evaluated.  Sup- 
pose, for  example,  a  subject  has  been  given  only  four  of 
the  six  tests  in  a  given  year,  and  that  he  passes  two,  or 
half  of  those  given.  In  such  a  case  the  probability  would 
be  that  had  all  six  tests  been  given,  three  would  have  been 
passed;  that  is,  one  half  of  all.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
when  a  test  has  been  omitted,  a  proportionately  larger  value 
should  be  assigned  to  each  of  those  given. 

If  all  six  tests  are  given  in  any  year  group  below  XII, 
each  has  a  value  of  2  months.  If  only  four  are  given,  each 
has  a  value  of  3  months  (12  -5-4  =  3).  If  five  tests  only 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  139 

are  given,  each  has  a  value  of  2.4  months  (12  -4-  5  =  2.4). 
If  in  year  group  XII  only  six  of  the  eight  tests  are  given, 
each  has  a  value  of  4  months  (24  -5-  6  =  4).  If  in  the  "aver- 
age adult  "  group  only  five  of  the  six  tests  are  given,  each 
has  a  value  of  6  months  instead  of  the  usual  5  months. 
In  this  connection  it  will  need  to  be  remembered  that  the 
six  "  average  adult "  tests  have  a  combined  value  of  30 
months  (6  tests,  5  months  each);  also  that  the  combined 
value  of  the  six  "  superior  adult "  tests  is  36  months 
(6X6  =  36).  Accordingly,  if  only  five  of  the  six  "  superior 
adult "  tests  are  given,  the  value  of  each  is  36  -4-  5  =  7.2 
months. 

For  example,  let  us  suppose  that  a  subject  has  been  tested 
as  follows:  All  the  six  tests  in  X  were  given  and  all  were 
passed;  only  six  of  the  eight  hi  XII  were  given  and  five  were 
passed;  five  of  the  six  in  XIV  were  given  and  three  were 
passed;  five  of  the  six  in  "  average  adult  "  were  given  and 
one  was  passed;  five  were  given  in  "  superior  adult "  and 
no  credit  earned.  The  result  would  be  as  follows:  — 

Years  Months 

Credit  presupposed,  years  I  to  IX 9 

Credit  earned  in  X,  G  given,  6  successes 1 

Credit  earned  in  XII,  6  given,  5  passed.  Unit  value  of  each 
test  given  is  24  -5-  6  =  4.   Total  value  of  the  5  tests 

passed  is  5  X  4  or 1          8 

Credit  earned  in  XIV,  5  tests  given,  S  passed.  Unit  value  of 
each  of  the  5  given  is  24  -j-  6  =  4.8.    Value  of  the  3 

passed  is  3  X  4.8,  or 0        14+ 

Credit  earned  in  "average  adult,"  5  tests  given,  1  passed. 
Unit  value  of  the  5  tests  given  is  SO  -5-  5  =  6.  Value  of 

the  1  success 0          0 

Credit  earned  in  "superior  adult" 0          0 

Total  credit 13          4+ 

The  calculation  of  mental  age  is  really  simpler  than 
our  verbal  illustrations  make  it  appear.  After  the  operation 


140      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

has  been  performed  twenty  or  thirty  times,  it  can  be  done 
in  less  than  a  half -minute  without  danger  of  error. 

The  use  of  the  intelligence  quotient.  As  elsewhere  ex- 
plained, the  mental  age  alone  does  not  tell  us  what  we  want 
to  know  about  a  child's  intelligence  status.  The  significance 
of  a  given  number  of  years  of  retardation  or  acceleration 
depends  upon  the  age  of  the  child.  A  3-year-old  child  who 
is  retarded  one  year  is  ordinarily  feeble-minded;  a  10-year- 
old  retarded  one  year  is  only  a  little  below  normal.  The 
child  who  at  3  years  of  age  is  retarded  one  year  will  prob- 
ably be  retarded  two  years  at  the  age  of  6,  three  years  at 
the  age  of  9,  and  four  years  at  the  age  of  12. 

What  we  want  to  know,  therefore,  is  the  ratio  existing 
between  mental  age  and  real  age.  This  is  the  intelligence 
quotient,  or  I  Q.  To  find  it  we  simply  divide  mental  age 
(expressed  in  years  and  months)  by  real  age  (also  expressed 
in  years  and  months).  The  process  is  easier  if  we  express 
each  age  in  terms  of  months  alone  before  dividing.  The 
division  can,  of  course,  be  performed  almost  instantaneously 
and  with  much  less  danger  of  error  by  the  use  of  a  slide 
rule  or  a  division  table.  One  who  has  to  calculate  many 
intelligence  quotients  should  by  all  means  use  some  kind  of 
mechanical  help. 

How  to  find  the  I  Q  of  adult  subjects.  Native  intelli- 
gence, in  so  far  as  it  can  be  measured  by  tests  now  avail- 
able, appears  to  improve  but  little  after  the  age  of  15  or 
16  years.  It  follows  that  in  calculating  the  I  Q  of  an  adult 
subject,  it  will  be  necessary  to  disregard  the  years  he  has 
lived  beyond  the  point  where  intelligence  attains  its  final 
development. 

Although  the  location  of  this  point  is  not  exactly  known, 
it  will  be  sufficiently  accurate  for  our  purpose  to  assume 
its  location  at  16  years.  Accordingly,  any  person  over  16 
years  of  age,  however  old,  is  for  purposes  of  calculating 


INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  USING  141 

I  Q  considered  to  be  just  16  years  old.  If  a  youth  of  18 
and  a  man  of  60  years  both  have  a  mental  age  of  12  years, 
the  I  Q  in  each  case  is  16  -*-  12,  or  .75. 

The  significance  of  various  values  of  the  I  Q  is  set  forth 
elsewhere.1  Here  it  need  only  be  repeated  that  100  I  Q 
means  exactly  average  intelligence;  that  nearly  all  who  are 
below  70  or  75  I  Q  are  feeble-minded;  and  that  the  child  of 
125  I  Q  is  about  as  much  above  the  average  as  the  high- 
grade  feeble-minded  individual  is  below  the  average.  For 
ordinary  purposes  all  who  fall  between  95  and  105  I  Q 
may  be  considered  as  average  in  intelligence. 

Material  for  use  in  testing.  It  is  strongly  recommended 
that  in  testing  by  the  Stanford  revision  the  regular  Stan- 
ford record  booklets  be  used.  These  are  so  arranged  as  to 
make  testing  accurate,  rapid,  and  convenient.  They  contain 
square,  diamond,  round  field,  vocabulary  list,  fables,  sen- 
tences, digits,  and  selections  for  memory  tests,  the  reading 
selection  barred  for  scoring,  the  dissected  sentences,  arith- 
metical problems,  etc.  One  is  required  for  each  child  tested.2 

1  See  Chapter  VI. 

1  Houghton  Mifflin  Company  will  supply  all  the  printed  material 
needed  in  the  tests,  including  the  lines  for  the  forms  for  VI,  2,  the  four 
pictures  for  "enumeration,"  "description,"  and  "interpretation,"  the 
pictures  for  V,  8  and  VI,  2,  the  colors,  designs  for  X,  3,  the  code  for 
Average  Adult,  6,  and  score  cards  for  square,  diamond,  designs,  and 
ball-and-field. 

This  is  all  the  material  required  for  the  use  of  the  Stanford  revision, 
except  the  five  weights  for  IX,  2,  and  V,  1,  and  the  Healy-Fernald  Con- 
struction Puzzle  for  X.  These  may  be  purchased  of  C.  II.  Stoelting  & 
Co.,  3037  Carroll  Avenue,  Chicago.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  have 
the  weights  and  the  Construction  Puzzle,  as  the  presence  of  one  or  more 
alternative  tests  in  each  year  makes  it  possible  to  substitute  other  tests 
instead  of  those  requiring  these  materials.  This  saves  considerable  ex- 
pense, as  the  cost  of  the  weights  is  $2.50  and  that  of  the  Construction 
Puzzle  $1.50.  Apart  from  these,  which  may  either  be  made  at  home  (see 
pages  278,  279)  or  dispensed  with,  the  only  necessary  equipment  for 
using  the  Stanford  revision  is  a  copy  of  this  book  with  the  accompanying 
set  of  printed  matter,  and  the  record  booklets. 


CHAPTER  IX 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  III 

m,  1.  Pointing  to  parts  of  the  body 

Procedure.  After  getting  the  child's  attention,  say: 
"  Show  me  your  nose."  "  Put  your  finger  on  your  nose." 
Same  with  eyes,  mouth,  and  hair. 

Tact  is  often  necessary  to  overcome  timidity.  If  two  or 
three  repetitions  of  the  instruction  fail  to  bring  a  response, 
point  to  the  child's  chin  or  ear  and  say:  "  Is  this  your 
nose  ?  "  "  No? "  "  Then  where  is  your  nose?"  Sometimes, 
after  one  has  tried  two  or  three  parts  of  the  test  without 
eliciting  any  response,  the  child  may  suddenly  release  his 
inhibitions  and  answer  all  the  questions  promptly.  In 
case  of  persistent  refusal  to  respond  it  is  best  not  to  harass 
the  child  for  an  answer,  but  to  leave  the  test  for  a  while 
and  return  to  it  later.  This  is  a  rule  which  applies  generally 
throughout  the  scale.  In  the  case  of  one  exceptionally  timid 
little  girl,  it  was  impossible  to  get  any  response  by  the 
usual  procedure,  but  immediately  when  a  doll  was  shown 
the  child  pointed  willingly  to  its  nose,  eyes,  mouth,  and 
hair.  The  device  was  successful  because  it  withdrew  the 
child's  attention  from  herself  and  centered  it  upon  some- 
thing objective. 

Scoring.  Three  responses  out  of  four  must  be  correct. 
Instead  of  pointing,  the  child  sometimes  responds  by 
winking  the  eyes,  opening  the  mouth,  etc.,  which  is  counted 
as  satisfactory. 

Remarks.  Binet's  purpose  in  this  test  is  to  ascertain 
whether  the  subject  is  capable  of  comprehending  simple 


TEST  NO.   Ill,   2  143 

language.  The  ability  to  comprehend  and  use  language  is 
indeed  one  of  the  most  reliable  indications  of  the  grade  of 
mental  development.  The  appreciation  of  gestures  comes 
first,  then  the  comprehension  of  language  heard,  next  the 
ability  to  repeat  words  and  sentences  mechanically,  and 
finally  the  ability  to  use  language  as  a  means  of  communica- 
tion. The  present  test,  however,  is  not  more  strictly  a  test 
of  language  comprehension  than  the  others  of  the  3-year 
group,  and  in  any  case  it  could  not  be  said  to  mark  the 
beginning  of  the  power  to  comprehend  spoken  language. 
That  is  fairly  well  advanced  by  the  age  of  2  years.  The 
test  closely  resembles  III,  2  (naming  familiar  objects), 
and  III,  3  (enumeration  of  objects  in  a  picture),  except 
that  it  brings  in  a  personal  element  and  gives  some  clue  to 
the  development  of  the  sense  of  self.  All  the  data  agree  in 
locating  the  test  at  year  III. 

Ill,  2.  Naming  familiar  objects 

Procedure.  Use  a  key,  a  penny,  a  closed  knife,  a  watch, 
and  an  ordinary  lead  pencil.  The  key  should  be  the  usual 
large-sized  doorkey,  not  one  of  the  Yale  type.  The  penny 
should  not  be  too  new,  for  the  freshly  made,  untarnished 
penny  resembles  very  little  the  penny  usually  seen.  Any 
ordinary  pocket  knife  may  be  used,  and  it  is  to  be  shown 
unopened.  The  formula  is,  "  What  is  this  ?  "  or,  "  Tell  me 
what  this  is." 

Scoring.  There  must  be  at  least  three  correct  responses 
out  of  five.  A  response  is  not  correct  unless  the  object  is 
named.  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  child  merely  to  show  that 
he  knows  its  use.  A  child,  for  example,  may  take  the  pencil 
and  begin  to  mark  with  it,  or  go  to  the  door  and  insert  the 
key  in  the  lock,  but  this  is  not  sufficient.  At  the  same  time 
we  must  not  be  too  arbitrary  about  requiring  a  particular 


144      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

name.  "  Cent  "  or  "  pennies  "  for  "penny"  is  satisfactory, 
but  "  money "  is  not.  The  watch  is  sometimes  called 
"  a  clock  "  or  "  a  tick-tock,"  and  we  shall  perhaps  not  be 
too  liberal  if  we  score  these  responses  plus.  "  Pen  "  for 
"  pencil,"  however,  is  unsatisfactory.  Substitute  names  for 
"key"  and  "knife"  are  rarely  given.  Mispronunciations 
due  to  baby-talk  are  of  course  ignored. 

Remarks.  The  purpose  of  this  test  is  to  find  out  whether 
the  child  has  made  the  association  between  familiar  objects 
and  their  names.  The  mental  processes  necessary  to  enable 
the  child  to  pass  this  test  are  very  elementary,  and  yet,  as 
far  as  they  go,  they  are  fundamental.  Learning  the  names 
of  objects  frequently  seen  is  a  form  of  mental  activity  in 
which  the  normally  endowed  child  of  2  to  4  years  finds 
great  satisfaction.  Any  marked  retardation  in  making  such 
associations  is  a  grave  indication  of  the  lack  of  that  spon- 
taneity which  is  so  necessary  for  the  development  of  the 
higher  grades  of  intelligence.  It  would  be  entirely  beside 
the  point,  therefore,  to  question  the  validity  of  the  test  on 
the  ground  that  a  given  child  may  not  have  been  taught 
the  names  of  the  objects  used.  Practically  all  children  3 
years  old,  however  poor  their  environment,  have  made  the 
acquaintance  of  at  least  three  of  the  five  objects,  and  if 
intelligence  is  normal  they  have  learned  their  names  as  a 
result  of  spontaneous  inquiry. 

Always  use  the  list  of  objects  here  given,  because  it  has 
been  standardized.  Any  improvised  selection  would  be 
sure  to  contain  some  objects  either  less  or  more  familiar 
than  those  in  the  standardized  list.  Note  also  that  three 
correct  responses  out  of  five  are  sufficient.  If  we  required 
five  correct  answers  out  of  six  (like  Kuhlmann),  or  three 
out  of  three  (like  Binet,  Goddard,  and  Huey),  the  test  would 
probably  belong  at  the  4-year  level.  Binet  states  that  this 
test  is  materially  harder  than  that  of  naming  objects  in  a 


TEST  NO.  HI,  3  145 

picture,  since  in  the  latter  the  child  selects  from  a  number 
of  objects  in  the  picture  those  he  knows  best,  while  in 
the  former  test  he  must  name  the  objects  we  have  arbitrarily 
chosen.  This  difference  does  not  hold,  however,  if  we  re- 
quire only  three  correct  responses  out  of  five  for  passing 
the  test  of  naming  objects,  instead  of  Binet's  three  out  of 
three.  All  else  being  equal,  it  is  of  course  easier  to  recognize 
and  name  a  real  object  shown  than  it  is  to  recognize  and 
name  it  from  a  picture. 

m,  3.  Enumeration  of  objects  in  pictures 

Procedure.  Use  the  three  pictures  designated  as  "  Dutch 
Home,"  "  River  Scene,"  and  "  Post-Office."  Say,  "  Now 
I  am  going  to  show  you  a  pretty  picture"  Then,  holding  the 
first  one  before  the  child,  close  enough  to  permit  distinct 
vision,  say:  "  Tell  me  what  you  see  in  this  picture"  If  there 
is  no  response,  as  sometimes  happens,  due  to  embarrass- 
ment or  timidity,  repeat  the  request  in  this  form:  "Look 
at  the  picture  and  tell  me  everything  you  can  see  in  it"  If 
there  is  still  no  response,  say:  "  Show  me  the  ..."  (naming 
some  object  in  the  picture) .  Only  one  question  of  this  type, 
however,  is  permissible.  If  the  child  answers  correctly, 
say:  "  That  is  fine;  now  tell  me  everything  you  see  in  the 
picture"  From  this  point  the  responses  nearly  always  fol- 
low without  further  coaxing.  Indeed,  if  rapport  has  been 
properly  cultivated  before  the  test  begins,  the  first  ques- 
tion will  ordinarily  be  sufficient.  If  the  child  names  one  or 
two  things  in  a  picture  and  then  stops,  urge  him  on  by  say- 
ing, "  And  what  else  ?  "  Proceed  with  pictures  6  and  c  in 
the  same  manner. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  child  enumerates  as 
many  as  three  objects  in  one  picture  spontaneously;  that  is, 
without  intervening  questions  or  urging.  Anything  better 


146      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

than  enumeration  (as  description  or  interpretation)  is  also 
acceptable,  but  description  is  rarely  encountered  before  5 
years  and  enumeration  rarely  before  9  or  10.1 

Remarks.  The  purpose  of  th<Ttest  in  this  year  is  to  find 
out  whether  the  sight  of  a  familiar  object  in  a  picture  pro- 
vokes recognition  and  calls  up  the  appropriate  name.2  The 
average  child  of  3  or  4  years  is  in  what  Binet  calls  "  the 
identification  stage  ";  that  is,  familiar  objects  in  a  picture 
will  be  identified  but  not  described,  their  relations  to  one 
another  will  not  be  grasped. 

In  giving  the  test,  always  present  the  pictures  in  the  same 
order,  first  Dutch  Home,  then  River  Scene,  then  Post- 
Office.  The  order  of  presentation  will  no  doubt  seem  to  the 
uninitiated  too  trivial  a  matter  to  insist  upon,  but  a  little 
experience  teaches  one  that  an  apparently  insignificant 
change  in  the  procedure  may  exert  a  considerable  influence 
upon  the  response.  Some  pictures  tend  more  strongly  than 
others  to  provoke  a  particular  type  of  response.  Some  lend 
themselves  especially  to  enumeration,  others  to  description, 
others  to  interpretation.  The  pictures  used  in  the  Stan- 
ford revision  have  been  selected  from  a  number  which  have 
been  tried  because  they  are  more  uniform  in  this  respect 
than  most  others  in  use.  However,  they  are  not  without 
their  differences,  picture  6,  for  example,  tending  more  than 
the  others  to  provoke  description. 

There  seems  to  be  no  disagreement  as  to  the  proper 
location  of  this  test. 

HI,  4.  Giving  sex 

Procedure.  If  the  subject  is  a  boy,  the  formula  is:  "Are 
you  a  little  boy  or  a  little  girl?"  If  a  girl,  "Are  you 

1  See  instructions  for  VII,  2,  and  XII,  7. 

1  For  a  discussion  of  the  significance  of  the  different  types  of  response, 
enumeration,  description,  and  interpretation,  see  VII,  2,  and  XII,  7. 


TEST  NO.  Ill,  5  147 

a  little  girl  or  a  little  boy  ?  "  This  variation  in  the  formula 
is  necessary  because  of  the  tendency  in  young  children  to 
repeat  mechanically  the  last  word  of  anything  that  is 
said  to  them.  If  there  is  no  response,  say:  "Are  you  a 
little  girl?"  (if  a  boy);  or,  "Are  you  a  little  boy?"  (if  a 
girl).  If  the  answer  to  the  last  question  is  "  no  "  (or  a  shake 
of  the  head),  we  then  say:  "  Well,  what  are  you  ?  Are  you 
a  little  boy  or  a  little  girl  ?  "  (or  vice  versa). 

Scoring.  The  response  is  satisfactory  if  it  indicates  that 
the  child  has  really  made  the  discrimination,  but  we  must 
be  cautious  about  accepting  any  other  response  than  the 
direct  answer,  "  A  little  girl,"  or,  "  A  little  boy."  "  Yes  " 
and  "  no  "  in  response  to  the  second  question  must  be 
carefully  checked  up. 

Remarks.  Binet  and  Goddard  say  that  3-year-olds  can- 
not pass  this  test  and  that  4-year-olds  almost  never  fail. 
We  can  accept  the  last  part  of  this  statement,  but  not  the 
first  part.  Nearly  all  of  our  3-year-old  subjects  succeed 
with  it. 

The  test  probably  has  nothing  to  do  with  sex  conscious- 
ness, as  such.  Success  in  it  would  seem  to  depend  on  the 
ability  to  discriminate  between  familiar  class  names  which 
are  in  a  certain  degree  related. 

HE,  5.  Giving  the  family  name 

Procedure.  The  child  is  asked,  "  What  is  your  name  ?  " 
If  the  answer,  as  often  happens,  includes  only  the  first 
name  (Walter,  for  example),  say:  "Yes,  but  what  is  your 
other  name  ?  Walter  what  ?"  If  the  child  is  silent,  or  if  he 
only  repeats  the  first  name,  say:  "  Is  your  name  Walter 
.  .  .  ?  "  (giving  a  fictitious  name,  as  Jones,  Smith,  etc.). 
This  question  nearly  always  brings  the  correct  answer  if 
it  is  known. 


148      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Scoring.  Simply  -f  or  — .  No  attention  is  paid  to  faults 
of  pronunciation. 

Remarks.  There  is  unanimous  agreement  that  this  test 
belongs  in  the  3-year  group.  Although  the  child  has  not 
had  as  much  opportunity  to  learn  the  family  name  as  his 
first  name,  he  is  almost  certain  to  have  heard  it  more  or 
less,  and  if  his  intelligence  is  normal  the  interest  in  self  will 
ordinarily  cause  it  to  be  remembered. 

The  critic  of  the  intelligence  scale  need  not  be  unduly 
exercised  over  the  fact  that  there  may  be  an  occasional 
child  of  3  years  who  has  never  heard  his  family  name.  We 
have  all  read  of  such  children,  but  they  are  so  extremely  rare 
that  the  chances  of  a  given  3-year-old  being  unjustly  penal- 
ized for  this  reason  are  practically  negligible.  In  the  second 
place,  contingencies  of  this  nature  are  throughout  the  scale 
consistently  allowed  for  in  the  percentage  of  passes  required 
for  locating  a  test.  Since  (in  the  year  groups  below  XIV) 
the  individual  tests  are  located  at  the  age  level  where  they 
are  passed  by  60  to  70  per  cent  of  unselected  children  of 
that  age,  it  follows  that  the  child  of  average  ability  is 
expected  to  fail  on  about  one  third  of  the  tests  of  his  age 
group.  The  plan  of  the  scale  is  such  as  to  warrant  this 
amount  of  leeway.  But  even  granting  the  possibility  that 
one  subject  out  of  a  hundred  or  so  may  be  unjustly  penalized 
for  lack  of  opportunity  to  acquire  the  knowledge  which 
the  test  calls  for,  the  injustice  done  does  not  greatly  alter 
the  result.  A  single  test  affects  mental  age  only  to  the  ex- 
tent of  two  months,  and  the  chances  of  two  such  injustices 
occurring  with  the  same  child  are  very  slight.  Herein 
lies  the  advantage  of  a  multiplicity  of  tests.  No  test  con- 
sidered by  itself  is  very  dependable,  but  two  dozen  tests, 
properly  arranged,  are  almost  infinitely  reliable. 


TEST  NO.  DI,  6  149 

HI,  6.  Repeating  six  to  seven  syllables 

Procedure.  Begin  by  saying:  "  Can  you  say  '  mamma  '  ? 
Now,  say  '  nice  kitty.'  '  Then  ask  the  child  to  say,  "  / 
have  a  little  dog."  Speak  the  sentence  distinctly  and  with 
expression,  but  in  a  natural  voice  and  not  too  slowly.  If 
there  is  no  response,  the  first  sentence  may  be  repeated  two 
or  three  times.  Then  give  the  other  two' sentences :  "  The 
dog  runs  after  the  cat,"  and,  "  In  summer  the  sun  is  hot." 
A  great  deal  of  tact  is  sometimes  necessary  to  enlist  the 
child's  cooperation  in  this  test.  If  he  cannot  be  persuaded  to 
try,  the  alternative  test  of  three  digits  may  be  substituted. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  at  least  one  sentence  is 
repeated  without  error  after  a  single  reading.  "  Without 
error  "  is  to  be  taken  literally;  there  must  be  no  omission, 
insertion,  or  transposition  of  words.  Ignore  indistinctness 
of  articulation  and  defects  of  pronunciation  as  long  as  they 
do  not  mutilate  the  sentence  beyond  easy  recognition. 

Remarks.  The  test  does  not  presuppose  that  the  child 
should  have  the  ability  to  make  and  use  sentences  like  these 
for  purposes  of  communication,  or  even  that  he  should 
know  the  meaning  of  all  the  words  they  contain.  Its  purpose 
is  to  bring  out  the  ability  of  the  child  to  repeat  a  six-sylla- 
ble series  of  more  or  less  familiar  language  sounds.  As 
every  one  knows,  the  normal  child  of  2  or  3  years  is  con- 
stantly imitating  the  speech  of  those  around  him  and  finds 
this  a  great  source  of  delight.  Long  practice  in  the  semi- 
mechanical  repetition  of  language  sounds  is  necessary  for 
the  learning  of  speech  coordinations  and  is  therefore  an 
indispensable  preliminary  to  the  purposeful  use  of  language. 
High-grade  idiots  and  the  lowest  grade  of  imbeciles  never  ac- 
quire much  facility  in  the  repetition  of  language  heard.  The 
test  gets  at  one  of  the  simplest  forms  of  mental  integration. 

Binet  says  that  children  of  3  years  never  repeat  sentences 


150      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

of  ten  syllables.  This  is  not  strictly  true,  for  six  out  of  nine- 
teen 3-year-olds  succeeded  in  doing  so.  All  the  data  agree, 
however,  that  the  average  child  of  3  years  repeats  only  six 
to  seven  syllables  correctly. 


HI.  Alternative  test :  repeating  three  digits 

Procedure.  Use  the  following  digits:  6-4-1,  3-5-2, 
8-3-7.  Begin  with  two  digits,  as  follows:  "Listen;  say 
4-2."  "New,  say  6-4-1."  "Now,  say  3-5-2,"  etc.  Pro- 
nounce the  digits  in  a  distinct  voice  and  with  perfectly 
uniform  emphasis  at  a  rate  just  a  little  faster  than  one  per 
second.  Two  per  second,  as  recommended  by  Binet,  is 
too  rapid. 

Young  subjects,  because  of  their  natural  timidity  in  the 
presence  of  strangers,  sometimes  refuse  to  respond  to  this 
test.  With  subjects  under  5  or  6  years  of  age  it  is  sometimes 
necessary  in  such  cases  to  re-read  the  first  series  of  digits 
several  times  in  order  to  secure  a  response.  The  response 
thus  secured,  however,  is  not  counted  in  scoring,  the  pur- 
pose of  the  re-reading  being  merely  to  break  the  child's 
silence.  The  second  and  third  series  may  be  read  but  once. 
With  the  digits  tests  above  year  IV  the  re-reading  of  a 
series  is  never  permissible. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  child  repeats  correctly,  after  a 
single  reading,  one  series  out  of  the  three  series  given.  Not 
only  must  the  correct  digits  be  given,  but  the  order  also 
must  be  correct. 

Remarks.  Others,  on  the  basis  of  rather  scanty  data, 
have  usually  located  this  test  at  the  4-year  level.  Our  re- 
sults show  that  with  the  procedure  described  above  it  is 
fully  as  easy  as  the  test  of  repeating  sentences  of  6  to 
7  syllables.1 

1  See  p.  194  ff.  for  further  discussion  of  the  digits  test. 


CHAPTER  X 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  IV 

IV,  1.  Comparison  of  lines 

Procedure.  Present  the  appropriate  accompanying  card 
with  the  lines  in  the  horizontal  position,  and  pointing  to 
the  top  pair  of  lines  say:  "  See  these  lines.  Look  closely 
and  tell  me  which  one  is  longer.  Put  your  finger  on  the 
longest  one."  We  use  the  superlative  as  well  as  the  com- 
parative form  of  long  because  it  is  often  more  familiar  to 
young  subjects.  If  the  child  does  not  respond,  say:  "  Show 
me  which  line  is  the  biggest."  In  the  same  way  show  the 
middle  and  lower  pairs  of  lines,  saying:  "  Which  one  is  the 
longest  here  ?  " 

Scoring.  All  three  comparisons  must  be  made  corectly; 
or  if  only  two  responses  out  of  three  are  correct,  all  three 
pairs  are  again  shown,  just  as  before,  and  if  there  is  no  error 
this  time,  the  test  is  passed.  The  standard,  therefore,  is 
three  correct  responses  out  of  three,  or  five  out  of  six. 

Sometimes  the  child  points,  but  at  no  particular  part  of 
the  card.  In  such  cases  it  may  be  difficult  to  decide  whether 
he  has  failed  to  comprehend  and  to  make  the  discrimination 
or  has  only  been  careless  in  pointing.  It  is  then  necessary 
to  repeat  the  experiment  until  the  evidence  is  clear. 

Remarks.  As  noted  by  Binet,  success  in  this  test  depends 
on  the  comprehension  of  the  verbal  directions  rather  than 
on  actual  discrimination  of  length.  The  child  who  would 
unerringly  choose  the  larger  of  two  pieces  of  candy  might 


152      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

fail  on  the  comparison  of  lines.  However,  since  the  child 
must  correctly  compare  the  lines  three  times  in  succession, 
or  at  least  in  five  out  of  six  trials,  willingness  to  attend 
also  plays  a  part.  The  attention  of  the  low-grade  imbecile, 
or  even  of  the  normal  child  of  3  years,  is  not  very  obedient 
to  the  suggestions  of  the  experimenter.  It  may  be  gained 
momentarily,  but  it  is  not  easily  held  to  the  same  task  for 
more  than  a  few  seconds.  Hence  some  children  who  per- 
fectly comprehend  this  task  fail  to  make  a  succession  of 
correct  comparisons  because  they  are  unable  or  unwilling 
to  bring  to  bear  even  the  small  amount  of  attention  which 
is  necessary.  This  does  not  in  the  least  condone  the  fail- 
ure, for  it  is  exactly  in  such  voluntary  control  of  mental 
processes  that  we  find  one  of  the  most  characteristic  dif- 
ferences between  bright  and  dull,  or  mature  and  immature 
subjects. 

There  has  been  little  disagreement  as  to  the  proper  loca- 
tion of  this  test. 

IV,  2.  Discrimination  of  forms 

Procedure.  Use  the  forms  supplied  with  this  book. 
First,  place  the  circle  of  the  duplicate  set  at  "X,"  and  say: 
"  Show  me  one  like  this,"  at  the  same  time  passing  the 
finger  around  the  circumference  of  the  circle.  If  the 
child  does  not  respond,  say:  "  Do  you  see  all  of  these 
things?"  (running  the  finger  over  the  various  forms); 
"And  do  you  see  this  one  ?  "  (pointing  again  to  the  circle) ; 
"Now,  find  me  another  one  just  like  this."  Use  the  square 
next,  then  the  triangle,  and  the  others  in  any  order. 

Correct  the  child's  first  error  by  saying:  "No,  find  one 
just  like  this  "  (again  passing  the  finger  around  the  outline 
of  the  form  at  "  X  ").  Make  no  comment  on  errors  after 
the  first  one,  proceeding  at  once  with  the  next  card,  but 


TEST  NO.  IV,  2  153 

each  time  the  choice  is  correct  encourage  the  child  with 
a  hearty  "  That 's  good,"  or  something  similar. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  seven  out  of  ten  choices 
are  correct,  the  first  corrected  error  being  counted. 

Remarks.  In  the  test  of  discriminating  forms,  unlike 
the  test  of  comparing  lines,  lack  of  success  is  less  often  due 
to  inability  to  understand  the  task  than  to  failure  to  dis- 
criminate. The  test  may  be  regarded  as  a  variation  of  the 
form-board  test.  It  displays  the  subject's  ability  to  com- 
pare and  contrast  successive  visual  perceptions  of  form. 
The  accurate  perception  of  even  a  fairly  simple  form  requires 
the  integration  of  a  number  of  sensory  elements  into  one 
whole.  The  forms  used  in  this  test  have  meaning.  They 
are  far  from  nonsense  figures  even  for  the  (normal)  child  of 
4  years,  who  has,  of  course,  never  heard  about  "  triangles," 
"  squares,"  "  rectangles,"  etc.  The  meaning  present  at  this 
level  of  intelligence  is  probably  a  compound  of  such  fac- 
tors as  appreciation  of  symmetry  and  direction,  and  dis- 
crimination of  quantity  and  number. 

Another  element  in  success,  especially  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  experiment,  is  the  ability  to  make  an  attentive  com- 
parison between  the  form  shown  and  the  others.  The  child 
may  be  satisfied  to  point  to  the  first  form  his  eye  happens  to 
fall  upon.  Far  from  being  a  legitimate  excuse  for  failure, 
such  an  exhibition  of  inattention  and  of  weakness  of  the 
critical  faculty  is  symptomatic  of  a  mental  level  below  4 
years. 

In  addition  to  counting  the  number  of  errors  made,  it  is 
interesting  to  note  with  what  forms  they  occur.  To  match 
the  circle  with  the  ellipse  or  the  octagon,  for  example,  is 
a  less  serious  error  than  to  match  it  with  the  square  or 
triangle. 

This  test  was  devised  and  standardized  by  Dr.  Fred 
Kuhlmann.  It  is  inserted  here  without  essential  altera- 


154      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

tion,  except  that  the  size  recommended  for  the  forms  is 
slightly  reduced  and  minor  changes  have  been  made  in  the 
wording  of  the  directions.  Our  own  results  are  favorable 
to  the  test  and  to  the  location  assigned  it  by  its  author. 

IV,  3.  Counting  four  pennies 

Procedure.  Place  four  pennies  in  a  horizontal  row  before 
the  child.  Say:  "  See  these  pennies.  Count  them  and  tell 
me  how  many  there  are.  Count  them  with  your  finger,  this 
way  "  (pointing  to  the  first  one  on  the  child's  left)  — 
"  One  "  —  "  Now,  go  ahead."  If  the  child  simply  gives  the 
number  (whether  right  or  wrong)  without  pointing,  say: 
"  No;  count  them  with  your  finger,  this  way,"  starting  him  off 
as  before.  Have  him  count  them  aloud. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  only  if  the  counting  tallies 
with  the  pointing.  It  is  not  sufficient  merely  to  state  the 
correct  number  without  pointing. 

Remarks.  Contrary  to  what  one  might  think,  this  is 
not  to  any  great  extent  a  test  of  "  schooling."  Practically 
all  children  of  this  age  have  had  opportunity  to  learn  to 
count  as  far  as  four,  and  with  normal  children  the  sponta- 
neous interest  in  number  is  such  that  very  few  4-year-olds, 
even  from  inferior  social  environment,  fail  to  pass  the  test. 

While  success  requires  more  than  the  ability  to  repeat 
the  number  names  by  rote,  it  does  not  presuppose  any  power 
of  calculation  or  a  mastery  of  the  number  concepts  from 
one  to  four.  Many  children  who  will  readily  say,  mechani- 
cally, "  one,  two,  three,  four,"  when  started  off,  are  not 
able  to  pass  the  test.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  expected 
that  the  child  who  passes  will  also  necessarily  understand 
that  four  is  made  up  of  two  two's,  or  four  one's,  or  three 
plus  one,  etc. 

Binet,  Goddard,  and  Kuhlmann  place  this  test  in  the 


TEST  NO.  IV,  4  155 

5-year  group,  but  three  separate  series  of  tests  made  for 
the  Stanford  revision,  as  well  as  nearly  all  the  statistics 
available  from  other  sources,  show  that  it  belongs  at  4 
years. 

IV,  4.  Copying  a  square 

Procedure.  Place  before  the  child  a  cardboard  on  which 
is  drawn  in  heavy  black  lines  a  square  about  1%  inches 
on  a  side.1  Give  the  child  a  pencil  and  say :  "  You  see  that 
(pointing  to  the  square).  /  want  you  to  make  one  just  like 
it.  Make  it  right  here  (showing  where  it  is  to  be  drawn). 
Go  ahead.  I  know  you  can  do  it  nicely." 

Avoid  such  an  expression  as,  "  /  want  you  to  draw  a 
figure  like  that."  The  child  may  not  know  the  meaning  of 
either  draw  or  figure.  Also,  in  pointing  to  the  model,  take 
care  not  to  run  the  finger  around  the  four  sides. 

Children  sometimes  have  a  deep-seated  aversion  to  draw- 
ing on  request  and  a  bit  of  tactful  urging  may  be  necessary. 
Experience  and  tact  will  enable  the  experimenter  in  all 
but  the  rarest  cases  to  come  out  victorious  in  these  little 
battles  with  balky  wills.  Give  three  trials,  saying  each  time: 
"  Make  it  exactly  like  this,"  pointing  to  model.  Make  sure 
that  the  child  is  in  an  easy  position  and  that  the  paper 
used  is  held  so  it  cannot  slip. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  at  least  one  drawing  out  of 
the  three  is  as  good  as  those  marked  +  on  the  score  card. 
Young  subjects  usually  reduce  figures  in  drawing  from  copy, 
but  size  is  wholly  disregarded  in  scoring.  It  is  of  more  im- 
portance that  the  right  angles  be  fairly  well  preserved  than 
that  the  lines  should  be  straight  or  the  corners  entirely 
closed.  The  scoring  of  this  test  should  be  rather  liberal. 

Remarks.  After  the  three  copies  have  been  made  say: 

1  No  material  is  needed  if  the  regular  Stanford  record  blanks  arc  used, 
as  these  all  contain  the  square  and  diamond. 


156      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

"  Which  one  do  you  like  best  ?"  In  this  way  we  get  an  idea 
of  the  subject's  power  of  auto-criticism,  a  trait  in  which 
the  mentally  retarded  are  nearly  always  behind  normal 
children  of  their  own  age.  Normal  children,  when  young, 
reveal  the  same  weakness  to  a  certain  extent..  It  is  especi- 
ally significant  when  the  subject  shows  complete  satisfac- 
tion with  a  very  poor  performance. 

Observe  whether  the  child  makes  each  part  with  careful 
effort,  looking  at  the  model  from  time  to  time,  or  whether 
the  strokes  are  made  in  a  haphazard  way  with  only  an  in- 
itial glance  at  the  original.  The  latter  procedure  is  quite 
common  with  young  or  retarded  subjects.  Curiously  enough, 
the  first  trial  is  more  successful  than  either  of  the  others, 
due  perhaps  to  a  waning  of  effort  and  attention. 

Note  that  pencil  is  used  instead  of  pen  and  that  only  one 
success  is  necessary.  Binet  gives  only  one  trial  and  requires 
pen.  Goddard  allows  pencil,  but  permits  only  one  trial. 
Kuhlmann  requires  pen  and  passes  the  child  only  when  two 
trials  out  of  three  are  successful.  But  these  authors  locate 
the  test  at  5  years.  Our  results  show  that  nearly  three 
fourths  of  4-year-olds  succeed  with  pencil  in  one  out  of 
three  trials  if  the  scoring  is  liberal.  It  makes  a  great  deal 
of  difference  whether  pen  or  pencil  is  used,  and  whether 
two  successes  are  required  or  only  one.  No  better  illustra- 
tion could  be  given  of  the  fact  that  without  thoroughgoing 
standardization  of  procedure  and  scoring  the  best  mental 
test  may  be  misleading  as  to  the  degree  of  intelligence  it 
indicates. 

Copying  a  square  is  one  of  three  drawing  tests  used  in 
the  Binet  scale,  the  others  being  the  diamond  (year  VII), 
and  the  designs  to  be  copied  from  memory  (year  X). 
These  tests  do  not  to  any  great  extent  test  what  is  usually 
known  as  "  drawing  ability."  Only  the  square  and  the  dia- 
mond tests  are  strictly  comparable  with  one  another,  the 


TEST  NO.  IV,  5  157 

other  having  a  psychologically  different  purpose.  In  none 
of  them  does  success  seem  to  depend  very  much  on  the 
amount  of  previous  instruction  in  drawing.  To  copy  a 
figure  like  a  square  or  a  diamond  requires  first  of  all  an 
appreciation  of  spacial  relationships.  The  figure  must  be 
perceived  as  a  whole,  not  simply  as  a  group  of  meaningless 
lines.  In  the  second  place,  success  depends  upon  the  ability 
to  use  the  visual  impression  in  guiding  a  rather  complex 
set  of  motor  coordinations.  The  latter  is  perhaps  the  main 
difficulty,  and  is  one  which  is  not  fully  overcome,  at  least 
for  complicated  movements,  until  well  toward  adult  life. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  square  and  the  diamond 
as  to  relative  difficulty.  They  have  the  same  number  of 
lines  and  in  each  case  the  opposite  sides  are  parallel;  but 
whereas  4-year  intelligence  is  equal  to  the  task  of  copying  a 
square,  the  diamond  ordinarily  requires  7-year  intelligence. 
Probably  no  one  could  have  foreseen  that  a  change  in  the 
angles  would  add  so  much  to  the  difficulty  of  the  figure. 
It  would  be  worth  while  to  devise  and  standardize  still 
more  complicated  figures. 

IV,  5.  Comprehension,  first  degree 

Procedure.  After  getting  the  child's  attention,  say: 
"  What  must  you  do  when  you  are  sleepy?"  If  necessary  the 
question  may  be  repeated  a  number  of  times,  using  a  per- 
suasive and  encouraging  tone  of  voice.  No  other  form  of 
question  may  be  substituted.  About  twenty  seconds  may 
be  allowed  for  an  answer,  though  as  a  rule  subjects  of  4 
or  5  years  usually  answer  quite  promptly  or  not  at  all. 

Proceed  in  the  same  way  with  the  other  two  questions: 
"  What  ought  you  to  do  when  you  are  cold?  "  "  What  ought 
you  to  do  when  you  are  hungry  ?  " 

Scoring.  There    must    be    two  correct  responses  out  of 


158      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

three.  No  one  form  of  answer  is  required.  It  is  sufficient 
if  the  question  is  comprehended  and  given  a  reasonably 
sensible  answer.  The  following  are  samples  of  correct  re- 
sponses :  — 

(a)  "Go  to  bed."  "Go  to  sleep."  "Have  my  mother  get  me 
ready  for  bed."  "Lie  still,  not  talk,  and  I'll  soon  be  asleep." 

(6)  "Put  on  a  coat"  (or  "cloak,"  "furs,"  "wrap  up,"  etc.). 
"Build  a  fire."  "Run  and  I  '11  soon  get  warm."  "Get  close 
to  the  stove."  "Go  into  the  house,"  or,  "Go  to  bed,"  may 
possibly  deserve  the  score  plus,  though  they  are  somewhat 
doubtful  and  are  certainly  inferior  to  the  responses  just 
given. 

(c)  "Eat  something."  "Drink  some  milk."  "Buy  a  lunch." 
"Have  my  mamma  spread  some  bread  and  butter,"  etc. 

With  the  comprehension  questions  in  this  year  it  is 
nearly  always  easy  to  decide  whether  the  response  is  ac- 
ceptable, failure  being  indicated  usually  either  by  silence 
or  by  an  absurd  or  irrelevant  answer.  One  8-year-old  boy 
who  had  less  than  4-year  intelligence  answered  all  three 
questions  by  putting  his  finger  on  his  eye  and  saying: 
"  I  'd  do  that."  "  Have  to  cry  "  is  a  rather  common  in- 
correct response. 

Remarks.  The  purpose  of  these  questions  is  to  ascer- 
tain whether  the  child  can  comprehend  the  situations  sug- 
gested and  give  a  reasonably  pertinent  reply.  The  first 
requirement,  of  course,  is  to  understand  the  language; 
the  second  is  to  tell  how  the  situation  suggested  should  be 
met. 

The  question  may  be  raised  whether  a  given  child  might 
not  fail  to  answer  the  questions  correctly  and  yet  have  the 
intelligence  to  do  the  appropriate  thing  if  the  real  situation 
were  present.  This  is  at  least  conceivable,  but  since  it 
would  not  be  practicable  to  make  the  subject  actually 
cold,  sleepy,  or  hungry  in  order  to  observe  his  behavior, 


TEST  NO.  IV,  6  159 

we  must  content  ourselves  with  suggesting  a  situation  to 
be  imagined.  It  probably  requires  more  intelligence  to 
tell  what  one  ought  to  do  in  a  situation  which  has  to  be 
imagined  than  to  do  the  right  thing  when  the  real  situation 
is  encountered. 

The  comprehension  questions  of  this  year  had  not  been 
standardized  until  the  Stanford  investigation  of  1913-14. 
Questions  a  and  b  were  suggested  by  Binet  in  1905,  while  c 
is  new.  They  make  an  excellent  test  of  4-year  intelligence. 

IV,  6.  Repeating  four  digits 

Procedure.  Say:  "  Now,  listen.  I  am  going  to  say  over 
some  numbers  and  after  I  am  through,  I  want  you  to  say 
them  exactly  like  I  do.  Listen  closely  and  get  them  just 
right  —  4-7-3-9."  Same  with  2-8-5-4  and  7-2-6-1. 
The  examiner  should  consume  nearly  four  seconds  in  pro- 
nouncing each  series,  and  should  practice  in  advance  until 
this  speed  can  be  closely  approximated.  If  the  child  re- 
fuses to  respond,  the  first  series  may  be  repeated  as  often 
as  may  be  necessary  to  prove  an  attempt,  but  success  with 
a  series  which  has  been  re-read  may  not  be  counted.  The 
second  and  third  series  may  be  pronounced  but  once. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  child  repeats  correctly,  after 
a  single  reading,  one  series  out  of  the  three  series  given. 
The  order  must  be  correct. 

Remarks.  The  test  of  repeating  four  digits  was  not 
included  by  Binet  in  the  scale  and  seems  not  to  have  been 
used  by  any  of  the  Binet  workers.  It  is  passed  by  about 
three  fourths  of  our  4-year-olds. 


160      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

IV.  Alternative  test :  repeating  twelve  to  thirteen  syllables 
The  three  sentences  are :  — 

(a)  "  The  boy's  name  is  John.  He  is  a  very  good  boy." 

(b)  "  When  the  train  passes  you  will  hear  the  whistle  blow." 

(c)  "  We  are  going  to  have  a  good  time  in  the  country." 

Procedure.  Get  the  child's  attention  and  say:  "Listen, 
say  this:  '  Where  is  kitty  ?'  "  After  the  child  responds,  add: 
"  Now  say  this  .  .  .  ,"  reading  the  first  sentence  in  a  natural 
voice,  distinctly  and  with  expression.  If  the  child  is  too 
timid  to  respond,  the  first  sentence  may  be  re-read,  but 
in  this  case  the  response  is  not  counted.  Re-reading  is 
permissible  only  with  the  first  sentence. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  at  least  one  sentence  is 
repeated  without  error  after  a  single  reading.  As  in  the 
alternative  test  of  year  III,  we  ignore  ordinary  indistinct- 
ness and  defects  of  pronunciation  due  to  imperfect  language 
development,  but  the  sentence  must  be  repeated  without 
addition,  omission,  or  transposition  of  words. 

Remarks.  Sentences  of  twelve  syllables  had  not  been 
standardized  previous  to  the  Stanford  revision,  but  Binet 
locates  memory  for  ten  syllables  at  year  V,  and  others 
have  followed  his  example.  Our  own  data  show  that  even 
4-year-olds  are  usually  able  to  repeat  twelve  syllables  with 
the  procedure  here  set  forth. 


CHAPTER  XI 

INSTRUCTIONS   FOR  YEAR  V 

V,  1.  Comparison  of  weights 

Materials.  It  is  necessary  to  have  two  weights,  identical 
in  shape,  size,  and  appearance,  weighing  respectively  3  and 
15  grams.1  If  manufactured  weights  are  not  at  hand,  it 
is  easy  to  make  satisfactory  substitutes  by  taking  stiff 
cardboard  pill-boxes,  about  1*4  inches  in  diameter,  and 
filling  them  with  cotton  and  shot  to  the  desired  weight. 
The  shot  must  be  embedded  in  the  center  of  the  cotton  so 
as  to  prevent  rattling.  After  the  box  has  been  loaded  to 
the  exact  weight,  the  lid  should  be  glued  on  firmly.  If  one 
does  not  have  access  to  laboratory  scales,  it  is  always  possi- 
ble to  secure  the  help  of  a  druggist  in  the  rather  delicate 
task  of  weighing  the  boxes  accurately.  A  set  of  pill-box 
weights  will  last  through  hundreds  of  tests,  if  handled  care- 
fully, but  they  will  not  stand  rough  usage.  The  manu- 
factured blocks  are  more  durable,  and  so  more  satisfactory 
in  the  long  run.  If  the  weights  are  not  at  hand,  the  alterna- 
tive test  may  be  substituted. 

Procedure.  Place  the  3-  and  15-gram  weights  on  the 
table  before  the  child  some  two  or  three  inches  apart. 
Say:  "  You  see  these  blocks.  They  look  just  alike,  but  one 
of  them  is  heavy  and  one  is  light.  Try  them  and  tell  me  which 
one  is  heavier."  If  the  child  does  not  respond,  repeat  the 

1  The  weights  required  for  this  test,  and  also  for  IX,  2,  may  be  pur- 
chased of  C.  H.  Stoclting  &  Co.,  3037  Carroll  Avenue,  Chicago,  Illinois. 


162      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

instructions,  sajing  this  time,  "  Tell  me  which  one  is  the 
heaviest."  (Many  American  children  have  heard  only  the 
superlative  form  of  the  adjective  used  in  the  comparison 
of  two  objects.) 

Sometimes  the  child  merely  points  to  one  of  the  boxes  or 
picks  up  one  at  random  and  hands  it  to  the*  examiner, 
thinking  he  is  asked  to  guess  which  is  heaviest.  We  then 
say:  "No,  that  is  not  the  way.  You  must  take  the  boxes  in 
your  hands  and  try  them,  like  this  "  (illustrating  by  lifting 
with  one  hand,  first  one  box  and  then  the  other,  a  few  inches 
from  the  table).  Most  children  of  5  years  are  then  able  to 
make  the  comparison  correctly.  Very  young  subjects, 
however,  or  older  ones  who  are  retarded,  sometimes  adopt 
the  rather  questionable  method  of  lifting  both  weights  in 
the  same  hand  at  once.  This  is  always  an  unfavorable  sign, 
especially  if  one  of  the  blocks  is  placed  in  the  hand  on  top 
of  the  other  block. 

After  the  first  trial,  the  weights  are  shuffled  and  again 
presented  for  comparison  as  before,  this  time  with  the  posi- 
tions reversed.  The  third  trial  follows  with  the  blocks  in  the 
same  position  as  in  the  first  trial.  Some  children  have  a 
tendency  to  stereotyped  behavior,  which  in  this  test  shows 
itself  by  choosing  always  the  block  on  a  certain  side.  Hence 
the  necessity  of  alternating  the  positions.1  Reserve  com- 
mendation until  all  three  trials  have  been  given. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  two  of  the  three  comparisons 
are  correct.  If  there  is  reason  to  suspect  that  the  successful 
responses  were  due  to  lucky  guesses,  the  test  should  be  en- 
tirely repeated. 

Remarks.  This  test  is  decidedly  more  difficult  than  that 
of  comparing  lines  (IV,  1).  It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  we 
can  regard  the  difference  as  one  due  primarily  to  the  rela- 
tive difficulty  of  visual  discrimination  and  muscular  dis- 
1  For  discussion  of  "stcreotypy"  see  p.  203. 


TEST  NO.  V,   2  163 

crimination.  In  fact,  the  test  with  weights  hardly  taxes 
sensory  discrimination  at  all  when  used  with  children  of 
5-year  intelligence.  Success  depends,  in  the  first  place,  on 
the  ability  to  understand  the  instructions;  and  in  the  second 
place,  on  the  power  to  hold  the  instructions  in  mind  long 
enough  to  guide  the  process  of  making  the  comparison. 
The  test  presupposes,  in  elementary  form,  a  power  which 
is  operative  in  all  the  higher  independent  processes  of 
thought,  the  power  to  neglect  the  manifold  distractions  of 
irrelevant  sensations  and  ideas  and  to  drive  direct  toward 
a  goal.  Here  the  goal  is  furnished  by  the  instruction, 
"  Try  them  and  see  which  is  heavier."  This  must  be  held 
firmly  enough  in  mind  to  control  the  steps  necessary  for 
making  the  comparison.  Ideas  of  piling  the  blocks  on  top 
of  one  another,  throwing  them,  etc.,  must  be  inhibited. 
Sometimes  the  low-grade  imbecile  starts  off  in  a  very 
promising  way,  then  apparently  forgets  the  instructions 
(loses  sight  of  the  goal),  and  begins  to  play  with  the  boxes 
in  a  random  way.  His  mental  processes  are  not  consecu- 
tive, stable,  or  controlled.  He  is  blown  about  at  the  mercy 
of  every  gust  of  momentary  interest. 

There  is  very  general  agreement  in  the  assignment  of 
this  test  to  year  V. 

V,  2.  Naming  colors 

Materials.  Use  saturated  red,  yellow,  blue,  and  green 
papers,  about  2X1  inch  in  size,  pasted  one  half  inch  apart 
on  white  or  gray  cardboard.  For  sake  of  uniformity  it  is 
best  to  match  the  colors  manufactured  especially  for  this 
test.1 

Procedure.  Point  to  the  colors  in  the  order,  red,  yellow, 
blue,  green.  Bring  the  finger  close  to  the  color  designated, 

1  Printer!  cards  showing  these  colors  nre  included  in  the  set  of  material 
furnished  by  the  publishers  of  this  book. 


164      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

in  order  that  there  may  be  no  mistake  as  to  which  one  is 
meant,  and  say:  "  What  is  the  name  of  that  color  ?  "  Do  not 
say:  "  What  color  is  that  ?  "  or,  "  What  kind  of  a  color  is 
that  ?  "  Such  a  formula  might  bring  the  answer,  "  The  first 
color  ";  or,  "A  pretty  color."  Still  less  would  it  do  to  say: 
"  Show  me  the  red,"  "  Show  me  the  yellow,"  etc.  This  would 
make  it  an  entirely  different  test,  one  that  would  probably 
be  passed  a  year  earlier  than  the  Binet  form  of  the  ex- 
periment. Nor  is  it  permissible,  after  a  color  has  been  mis- 
called, to  return  to  it  and  again  ask  its  name. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  only  if  all  the  colors  are  named 
correctly  and  without  marked  uncertainty.  However, 
prefixing  the  adjective  "  dark,"  or  "  light,"  before  the  name 
of  a  color  is  overlooked. 

Remarks.  Naming  colors  is  not  a  test  of  color  discrimi- 
nation, for  that  capacity  is  well  developed  years  below 
the  level  at  which  this  test  is  used.  All  5-year-olds  who  are 
not  color  blind  discriminate  among  the  four  primary  colors 
here  used  as  readily  as  adults  do.  As  stated  by  Binet,  it 
is  a  test  of  the  "  verbalization  of  color  perception."  It 
tells  us  whether  the  child  has  associated  the  names  of  the 
four  primary  colors  with  his  perceptual  imagery  of  those 
colors. 

The  ability  to  make  simple  associations  between  a  sense 
impression  and  a  name  is  certainly  present  in  normal  chil- 
dren some  time  before  the  above  color  associations  are 
actually  made.  Many  objects  of  experience  are  cor- 
rectly named  two  or  three  years  earlier,  and  it  may  seem  at 
first  a  little  strange  that  color  names  are  learned  so  late. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  child  does  not  have 
numerous  opportunities  to  observe  and  hear  the  names  of 
several  colors  at  once,  nor  does  the  designation  of  colors  by 
their  names  ordinarily  have  much  practical  value  for  the 
young  child.  When  he  finally  learns  their  names,  it  is 


TEST  NO.  V,  3  165 

more  because  of  his  spontaneous  interest  in  the  world  of 
sense.  Lack  of  such  spontaneous  interest  is  always  an  un- 
favorable sign,  and  it  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that 
imbecile  intelligence  has  ordinarily  never  taken  the  trouble 
to  associate  colors  with  their  names.  Girls  are  somewhat 
superior  to  boys  in  this  test,  due  probably  to  a  greater 
natural  interest  in  colors. 

Binet  originally  placed  this  test  in  year  VIII,  changing 
it  to  year  VII  in  the  1911  scale.  Goddard  places  it  in  year 
VII,  while  Kuhlmann  omits  it  altogether.  With  a  single 
exception,  all  the  actual  statistics  with  normal  children 
justify  the  location  of  the  test  in  year  V.  Bobertag's  figures 
are  the  exception,  opposed  to  which  are  Rowe,  Winch, 
Dumville,  Dougherty,  Brigham,  and  all  three  of  the  Stan- 
ford investigations. 

The  test  is  probably  more  subject  to  the  influence  of  home 
environment  than  most  of  the  other  tests  of  the  scale, 
and  if  the  social  status  of  the  child  is  low,  failure  would  not 
be  especially  significant  until  after  the  age  of  6  years.  On 
the  whole  it  is  an  excellent  test. 

V,  3.  Esthetic  comparison 

Use  the  three  pairs  of  faces  supplied  with  the  printed 
forms.  It  goes  without  saying  that  improvised  drawings 
may  not  be  substituted  for  Binet's  until  they  have  first 
been  standardized. 

Procedure.  Show  the  pairs  in  order  from  top  to  bottom. 
Say:  "Which  of  these  two  pictures  is  the  prettiest?"  Use 
both  the  comparative  and  the  superlative  forms  of  tfie  ad- 
jective. Do  not  use  the  question,  "  Which  face  is  the  uglier 
(ugliest)?  "  unless  there  is  some  difficulty  in  getting  the 
child  to  respond.  It  is  not  permitted,  in  case  of  an  incorrect 
response,  to  give  that  part  of  the  test  again  and  to  allow 


166      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

the  child  a  chance  to  correct  his  answer;  or,  in  case  this  is 
done,  we  must  consider  only  the  original  response  in  scoring. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  only  if  all  three  comparisons 
are  made  correctly.  Any  marked  uncertainty  is  failure. 
Sometimes  the  child  laughingly  designates  the  ugly  picture 
as  the  prettier,  yet  shows  by  his  amused  expression  that  he 
is  probably  conscious  of  its  peculiarity  or  absurdity.  In 
such  cases  "  pretty  "  seems  to  be  given  the  meaning  of 
"  funny  "  or  "  amusing."  Nevertheless,  we  score  this  re- 
sponse as  failure,  since  it  betokens  a  rather  infantile  toler- 
ance of  ugliness. 

Remarks.  From  the  psychological  point  of  view  this  is 
a  most  interesting  test.  One  might  suppose  that  aesthetic 
judgment  would  be  relatively  independent  of  intelligence. 
Certainly  no  one  could  have  known  in  advance  of  experience 
that  intellectual  retardation  would  reveal  itself  in  weak- 
ness of  the  aesthetic  sense  about  as  unmistakably  as  in 
memory,  practical  judgment,  or  the  comprehension  of 
language.  But  such  is  the  case.  The  development  of  the 
aesthetic  sense  parallels  general  mental  growth  rather 
closely.  The  imbecile  of  4-year  intelligence,  even  though 
he  may  have  lived  forty  years,  has  no  more  chance  of  pass- 
ing this  test  than  any  other  test  in  year  V.  It  would  be 
profitable  to  devise  and  standardize  a  set  of  pictures  of  the 
same  general  type  which  would  measure  a  less  primitive 
stage  of  aesthetic  development. 

The  present  test  was  located  by  Binet  in  year  VI  and  has 
been  retained  in  that  year  in  other  revisions;  but  three 
separate  Stanford  investigations,  as  well  as  the  statistics 
of  Winch,  Dumville,  Brigham,  Rowe,  and  Dougherty, 
warrant  its  location  in  year  V. 


TEST  NO.   V,  4  167 

V,  4.  Giving  definitions  in  terms  of  use 

Procedure.  Use  the  words:  Chair,  horse,  fork,  doll, 
pencil,  and  table.  Say:  "  You  have  seen  a  chair.  You  know 
what  a  chair  is.  Tell  me,  what  is  a  chair  ?  "  And  so  on  with 
the  other  words,  always  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
named  above. 

Occasionally  there  is  difficulty  in  getting  a  response,  which 
is  sometimes  due  merely  to  the  child's  unwillingness  to 
express  his  thoughts  in  sentences.  The  earlier  tests  require 
only  words  and  phrases.  In  other  cases  silence  is  due  to 
the  rather  indefinite  form  of  the  question.  The  child  could 
answer,  but  is  not  quite  sure  what  is  expected  of  him. 
Whatever  the  cause,  a  little  tactful  urging  is  nearly  always 
sufficient  to  bring  a  response.  In  this  test  we  have  not 
found  the  difficulty  of  overcoming  silence  nearly  as  great 
as  others  have  stated  it  to  be.  In  consecutive  tests  of  150 
5-  and  6-year-old  children  we  encountered  unbreakable 
silence  with  8  words  out  of  the  total  900  (150  X  6).  This 
is  less  than  1  per  cent.  But  tactful  encouragement  is  some- 
times necessary,  and  it  is  best  to  take  the  precaution  of 
not  giving  the  test  until  rapport  has  been  well  established. 

The  urging  should  take  the  following  form:  "I'm  sure 
you  know  what  a  ...  is.  You  have  seen  a  ...  Now, 
tell  me,  what  is  a  .  .  .  ?  "  That  is,  we  merely  repeat  the 
question  with  a  word  of  encouragement  and  in  a  coaxing 
tone  of  voice.  It  would  not  at  all  do  to  introduce  other 
questions,  like,  "  What  does  a  ...  look  like  ?  "  or,  "  What 
is  a  ...  for  f  "  "  What  do  people  do  with  a  .  .  .  ?  " 

Sometimes,  instead  of  attempting  a  definition  (of  doll, 
for  example),  the  child  begins  to  talk  in  a  more  or  less  ir- 
relevant way,  as,  "  I  have  a  great  big  doll.  Auntie  gave  it 
to  me  for  Christmas,"  etc.  In  such  cases  we  repeat  the  ques- 
tion and  say:  "  Yes,  but  tell  me;  what  is  a  doll?  "  This  is 


168      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

usually  sufficient  to  bring  the  little  chatter-box  back  to 
the  task. 

Unless  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  give  the  child  lavish  en- 
couragement, it  is  best  to  withhold  approval  or  disapproval 
until  the  test  has  been  finished.  If  the  first  response  is  a 
poor  one  and  we  pronounce  it  "  fine  "  or  "  very  good," 
we  tempt  the  child  to  persist  in  his  low-grade  type  of  defi- 
nition. By  withholding  comment  until  the  last  word 
has  been  defined,  we  give  greater  play  to  spontaneity  and 
initiative. 

Scoring.  As  a  rule,  children  of  5  and  6  years  define  an 
object  in  terms  of  use,  stating  what  it  does,  what  it  is  for, 
what  people  do  with  it,  etc.  Definitions  by  description,  by 
telling  what  substance  it  is  made  of,  and  by  giving  the  class 
to  which  it  belongs  are  grouped  together  as  "  definitions 
superior  to  use."  It  is  not  before  8  years  that  two  thirds  of 
the  children  spontaneously  give  a  large  proportion  of  defi- 
nitions in  terms  superior  to  use. 

The  test  is  passed  in  year  V  if  four  words  out  of  the  six 
are  defined  in  terms  of  use  (or  better  than  use).  The  fol- 
lowing are  examples  of  satisfactory  responses :  — 

Chair:  "To  sit  on."  "You  sit  on  it."  "It  is  made  of  wood  and 
has  legs  and  back,"  etc. 

Horse:  "To  drive."  "To  ride."  "What  people  drive."  "To 
pull  the  wagon."  "It  is  big  and  has  four  legs,"  etc. 

Fork:  "To  eat  with."  "To  stick  meat  with."  "It  is  hard  and 
has  three  sharp  things,"  etc. 

Doll:  "To  play  with."  "What  you  dress  and  put  to  bed."  "To 
rock,"  etc. 

Pencil:  "To  write  with."  "To  draw."  "They  write  with  it." 
"It  is  sharp  and  makes  a  black  mark." 

Table:  "To  eat  on."  "What  you  put  the  dinner  on."  "Where 
you  write."  "It  is  made  of  wood  and  has  legs." 

Examples  of  failure  are  such  responses  as  the  following: 
"A  chair  is  a  chair";  "There  is  a  chair";  or  simply, 


TEST  NO.  V,  5  169 

"  There  "  (pointing  to  a  chair).  We  record  such  responses 
without  pressing  for  a  further  definition.  About  the  only 
other  type  of  failure  is  silence. 

Remarks.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  test  to  find  out 
whether  the  child  knows  the  meaning  of  the  words  he  is 
asked  to  define.  Words  have  purposely  been  chosen  which 
are  perfectly  familiar  to  all  normal  children  of  5  years. 
But  with  young  children  there  is  a  difference  between  know- 
ing a  word  and  giving  a  definition  of  it.  Besides,  we  desire 
to  find  out  how  the  child  apperceives  the  word,  or  rather 
the  object  for  which  it  stands;  whether  the  thing  is  thought 
of  in  terms  of  use,  appearance  (shape,  size,  color,  etc.), 
material  composing  it,  or  class  relationships. 

This  test,  because  it  throws  such  interesting  light  on  the 
maturity  of  the  child's  apperceptive  processes,  is  one  of 
the  most  valuable  of  all.  It  is  possible  to  differentiate  at 
least  a  half-dozen  degrees  of  excellence  in  definitions,  ac- 
cording to  the  intellectual  maturity  of  the  subject.  A 
volume,  indeed,  could  be  written  on  the  development  of 
word  definitions  and  the  growth  of  meanings;  but  we  will 
postpone  further  discussion  until  VIII,  5.  Our  concern 
at  present  is  to  know  that  children  of  5  years  should  at 
least  be  able  to  define  four  of  these  six  words  in  terms  of 
use. 

Binet  placed  the  test  in  year  VI,  but  our  own  figures 
and  those  of  nearly  all  the  other  investigations  indicate 
that  it  is  better  located  in  year  V. 

V,  5.  The  game  of  patience 

Material.  Prepare  two  rectangular  cards,  each  2X3 
inches,  and  divide  one  of  them  into  two  triangles  by  cut- 
ting it  along  one  of  its  diagonals. 

Procedure.  Place  the  uncut  card  on  the  table  with  one 


170      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

of  its  longer  sides  to  the  child.  By  the  side  of  this  card,  a 
little  nearer  the  child  and  a  few  inches  apart,  lay  the  two 
halves  of  the  divided  rectangle  with  their  hypothenuses 
turned  from  each  other  as  follows: 

Then  say  to  the  child:  "  I  want 
you  to  take  these  two  pieces  (touching 
the  two  triangles)  and  put  them  to- 
gether so  they  will  look  exactly  like 
this  "  (pointing  to  the  uncut  card). 
If  the  child  hesitates,  we  repeat  the  instructions  with  a 
little  urging.  Say  nothing  about  hurrying,  as  this  is  likely 
to  cause  confusion.  Give  three  trials,  of  one  minute  each. 
If  only  one  trial  is  given,  success  is  too  often  a  result  of 
chance  moves;  but  luck  is  not  likely  to  bring  two  successes 
in  three  trials.  If  the  first  trial  is  a  failure,  move  the  cut 
halves  back  to  their  original  position  and  say:  "  No; 
put  them  together  so  they  will  look  like  this  "  (pointing  to  the 
uncut  card).  Make  no  other  comment  of  approval  or  dis- 
approval. Disregard  in  silence  the  inquiring  looks  of  the 
child  who  tries  to  read  his  success  or  failure  in  your  face. 

If  one  of  the  pieces  is  turned  over,  the  task  becomes  im- 
possible, and  it  is  then  necessary  to  turn  the  piece  back  to 
its  original  position  and  begin  over,  not  counting  this  trial. 
Have  the  under  side  of  the  pieces  marked  so  as  to  avoid  the 
risk  of  presenting  one  of  them  to  the  child  wrong  side  up. 

Scoring.  There  must  be  two  successes  in  three  trials. 
About  the  only  difficulty  in  scoring  is  that  of  deciding  what 
constitutes  a  trial.  We  count  it  a  trial  when  the  child 
brings  the  pieces  together  and  (after  few  or  many  changes) 
leaves  them  in  some  position.  Whether  he  succeeds  after 
many  moves,  or  leaves  the  pieces  with  approval  in  some 
absurd  position,  or  gives  up  and  says  he  cannot  do  it,  his 
effort  counts  as  one  trial.  A  single  trial  may  involve  a 
number  of  unsuccessful  changes  of  position  in  the  two 


TEST  NO.  V,  5  171 

cards,  but  these  changes  may  not  consume  altogether  more 
than  one  minute. 

Remarks.  As  aptly  described  by  Binet,  the  operation  has 
the  following  elements:  "  (1)  To  keep  in  mind  the  end  to 
be  attained,  that  is  to  say,  the  figure  to  be  formed.  It  is 
necessary  to  comprehend  this  end  and  not  to  lose  sight  of 
it.  (2)  To  try  different  combinations  under  the  influence 
of  this  directing  idea,  which  guides  the  efforts  of  the  child 
even  though  he  be  unconscious  of  the  fact.  (3)  To  judge 
the  formed  combination,  compare  it  with  the  model,  and 
decide  whether  it  is  the  correct  one." 

It  may  be  classed,  therefore,  as  one  of  the  many  forms  of 
the  "  combination  method."  Elements  must  be  combined 
into  some  kind  of  whole  under  the  guidance  of  a  directing 
idea.  In  this  respect  it  has  something  in  common  with  the 
form-board  test,  the  Ebbinghaus  test,  and  the  test  with  dis- 
sected sentences  (XII,  4).  Binet  designates  it  a  "  test  of 
patience,"  because  success  in  it  depends  upon  a  certain 
willingness  to  persist  in  a  line  of  action  under  the  control 
of  an  idea. 

Not  all  failures  in  this  test  are  equally  significant.  A 
bright  child  of  5  years  sometimes  fails,  but  usually  not 
without  many  trial  combinations  which  he  rejects  one  after 
another  as  unsatisfactory.  A  dull  child  of  the  same  age 
often  stops  after  he  has  brought  the  pieces  into  any  sort  of 
juxtaposition,  however  absurd,  and  may  be  quite  satisfied 
with  his  foolish  effort.  His  mind  is  not  fruitful  and  he  lacks 
the  power  of  auto-criticism. 

It  would  be  well  worth  while  to  work  out  a  new  and 
somewhat  more  difficult  "  test  of  patience,"  but  with  special 
care  to  avoid  the  puzzling  features  of  the  usual  games  of 
anagrams.  The  one  given  us  by  Binet  is  rather  easy  for 
year  V,  though  plainly  somewhat  too  difficult  for  year  IV. 


172       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

V,  6.  Three  commissions 

Procedure.  After  getting  up  from  the  chair  and  moving 
with  the  child  to  the  center  of  the  room,  say:  "Now,  I 
want  you  to  do  something  for  me.  Here  's  a  key.  I  want 
you  to  put  it  on  that  chair  over  there;  then  I  want  you  to 
shut  (or  open)  that  door,  and  then  bring  me  the  box  which 
you  see  over  there  (pointing  in  turn  to  the  objects  designated). 
Do  you  understand  ?  Be  sure  to  get  it  right.  First,  put  the 
key  on  the  chair,  then  shut  (open)  the  door,  then  bring  me  the 
box  (again  pointing).  Go  ahead."  Stress  the  words  first 
and  then  so  as  to  emphasize  the  order  in  which  the  commis- 
sions are  to  be  executed. 

Give  the  commissions  always  in  the  above  order.  Do 
not  repeat  the  instructions  again  or  give  any  further  aid 
whatever,  even  by  the  direction  of  the  gaze.  If  the  child 
stops  or  hesitates  it  is  never  permissible  to  say:  "  What 
next  ?  "  Have  the  self-control  to  leave  the  child  alone  with 
his  task. 

Scoring.  All  three  commissions  must  be  executed  and  in 
the  proper  order.  Failure  may  result,  therefore,  either  from 
leaving  out  one  or  more  of  the  commands  or  from  changing 
the  order.  The  former  is  more  often  the  case. 

Remarks.  Success  depends  first  on  the  ability  to  compre- 
hend the  commands,  and  secondly,  on  the  ability  to  hold 
them  in  mind.  It  is  therefore  a  test  of  memory,  though 
of  a  somewhat  different  kind  from  that  involved  in  repeat- 
ing digits  or  sentences.  It  is  an  excellent  test,  for  it  throws 
light  on  a  kind  of  intelligence  which  is  demanded  in  all 
occupations  and  in  everyday  life.  A  more  difficult  test  of 
the  same  type  ought  to  be  worked  out  for  a  higher  age 
level. 

Binet  originally  located  this  test  in  year  VI,  but  in  1911 
changed  it  to  year  VII.  This  is  unfortunate,  for  the  three 


TEST  NO.  V,   ALTERNATIVE  173 

Stanford  investigations,  as  well  as  the  statistics  of  all  other 
investigators,  show  conclusively  that  it  is  easy  enough  for 
year  V. 

V.  Alternative  test :  giving  age 

Procedure.  The  formula  is  simply,  "  How  old  are  you  ?  " 
The  child  of  this  age  is,  of  course,  not  expected  to  know  the 
date  of  his  birthday,  but  merely  how  many  years  old  he  is. 

Scoring.  About  the  only  danger  in  scoring  is  in  the 
failure  to  verify  the  child's  response.  Some  children  give 
an  incorrect  answer  with  perfect  assurance,  and  it  is 
therefore  always  necessary  to  verify. 

Remarks.  Inability  to  give  the  age  may  or  may  not 
be  significant.  If  the  child  has  arrived  at  the  age  of  7  or 
8  years  and  has  had  anything  like  a  normal  social  environ- 
ment, failure  in  the  test  is  an  extremely  unfavorable  sign. 
But  if  the  child  is  an  orphan  or  has  grown  up  in  neglect, 
ignorance  of  age  has  little  significance  for  intelligence. 
About  all  we  can  say  is  that  if  a  child  gives  his  age  cor- 
rectly, it  is  because  he  has  had  sufficient  interest  and  in- 
telligence to  remember  verbal  statements  which  have  been 
made  concerning  him  in  his  presence.  He  may  even  pass 
the  test  without  attaching  any  definite  meaning  to  the 
word  "  year."  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  has  lived  seven  or 
eight  years  in  a  normal  environment,  it  is  safe  to  assume 
that  he  has  heard  his  age  given  many  times,  and  failure  to 
remember  it  would  then  indicate  either  a  weak  memory 
or  a  grave  inferiority  of  spontaneous  interests,  or  both. 
Normal  children  have  a  natural  interest  in  the  things  they 
hear  said  about  themselves,  while  the  middle-grade  im- 
becile of  even  40  years  may  fail  to  remember  his  age,  how- 
ever often  he  may  have  heard  it  stated. 

Binet  placed  the  test  in  year  VI  of  the  1908  series,  but 
omitted  it  altogether  in  1911.  Kuhlmann  and  Goddard 


174        THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

also  omit  it,  perhaps  wisely.  Nevertheless,  it  is  always  'in- 
teresting to  give  as  a  supplementary  test.  Children  from 
good  homes  acquire  the  knowledge  about  a  year  earlier 
than  those  from  less  favorable  surroundings.  Unselected 
children  of  California  ordinarily  pass  the  test  at  5  years. 


CHAPTER  XII 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  VI 

VI,  1.  Distinguishing  right  and  left 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  child:  "  Show  me  your  right 
hand"  After  this  is  responded  to,  say:  "  Show  me  your 
left  ear"  Then:  "  Show  me  your  right  eye."  Stress  the 
words  left  and  ear  rather  strongly  and  equally;  also  right 
and  eye.  If  there  is  one  error,  repeat  the  test,  this  time  with 
left  hand,  right  ear,  and  left  eye.  Carefully  avoid  giving 
any  help  by  look  of  approval  or  disapproval,  by  glancing 
at  the  part  of  the  body  indicated,  or  by  supplementary 
questions. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  all  three  questions  are  an- 
swered correctly,  or  if,  in  case  of  one  error,  the  three  addi- 
tional questions  are  all  answered  correctly.  The  standard, 
therefore,  is  three  out  of  three,  or  five  out  of  six. 

The  chief  danger  of  variation  among  different  examiners 
in  scoring  comes  from  double  responses.  For  example,  the 
child  may  point  first  to  one  ear  and  then  to  the  other. 
In  all  cases  of  double  response,  the  rule  is  to  count  the 
second  response  and  disregard  the  first.  This  holds  whether 
the  first  response  was  wrong  and  the  second  right,  or  vice 
versa. 

Remarks.  It  is  interesting  to  follow  the  child's  acquisi- 
tions of  language  distinctions  relating  to  spacial  orientation. 
Other  distinctions  of  this  type  are  those  between  up  and 
down,  above  and  below,  near  and  far,  before  and  behind, 


176       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

etc.  As  Bobertag  has  pointed  out,  the  child  first  masters 
such  distinctions  as  up  and  down,  above  and  below,  before 
and  behind,  etc.,  and  arrives  at  a  knowledge  of  right  and 
left  rather  tardily. 

How  may  we  explain  the  late  distinction  of  right  and  left 
as  compared  with  up  and  down?  At  least  four  theories  may 
be  advanced:  (1)  Something  depends  on  the  frequency 
with  which  children  have  occasion  to  make  the  respective 
distinctions.  (2)  It  may  be  explained  on  the  supposition 
that  kinsesthetic  sensations  are  more  prominently  involved 
in  distinctions  of  up  and  down  than  in  distinctions  of  right 
and  left.  It  is  certainly  true  that,  in  distinguishing  the  two 
sides  of  a  thing,  less  bodily  movement  is  ordinarily  required 
than  in  distinctions  of  its  upper  and  lower  aspects.  The 
former  demands  only  a  shift  of  the  eyes,  the  latter  often 
requires  an  upward  or  downward  movement  of  the  head. 
(3)  It  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  appearance  of  an 
object  is  more  affected  by  differences  in  vertical  orientation 
than  by  those  of  horizontal  orientation.  We  see  an  object 
now  from  one  side,  now  from  the  other,  and  the  two  aspects 
easily  blend,  while  the  two  aspects  corresponding  to  above 
and  below  are  not  viewed  in  such  rapid  succession  and  so 
remain  much  more  distinct  from  one  another  in  the  child's 
mind.  Or,  (4),  the  difference  may  be  mainly  a  matter  of 
language.  The  child  undoubtedly  hears  the  words  up 
and  down  much  oftener  than  right  and  left,  and  thus  learns 
then*  meaning  earlier.  Horizontal  distinctions  are  commonly 
made  in  such  terms  as  this  side  and  that  side,  or  merely  by 
pointing,  while  in  the  case  of  vertical  distinctions  the  words 
up  and  down  are  used  constantly.  This  last  explanation 
is  a  very  plausible  one,  but  it  is  very  probable  that  other 
factors  are  also  involved. 

The  distinction  between  right  and  left  has  a  certain  in- 
herent and  more  or  less  mysterious  difficulty.  To  convince 


TEST  NO.  VI,  1  177 

one's  self  of  this  it  is  only  necessary  to  try  a  little  experi- 
ment on  the  first  fifty  persons  one  chances  to  meet.  The 
experiment  is  as  follows.  Say:  "  I  am  going  to  ask  you  a 
question  and  I  want  you  to  answer  it  as  quickly  as  you  can." 
Then  ask:  "  Which  is  your  right  hand?  "  About  forty 
persons  out  of  fifty  will  answer  correctly  without  a  second's 
hesitation,  several  will  require  two  or  three  seconds  to 
respond,  while  a  few,  possibly  four  or  five  per  cent,  will 
grow  confused  and  perhaps  be  unable  to  respond  for  five  or 
ten  seconds.  Some  very  intelligent  adults  cannot  possibly 
tell  which  is  the  right  or  left  hand  without  first  searching 
for  a  scar  or  some  other  distinguishing  mark  which  is  known 
to  be  on  a  particular  hand.  Others  resort  to  incipient  move- 
ments of  writing,  and  since,  of  course,  every  one  knows  which 
hand  he  writes  with,  the  writing  movements  automatically 
initiated  give  the  desired  clue.  One  bright  little  girl  of  8 
years  responded  by  trying  to  wink  first  one  eye  and  then 
the  other.  Asked  why  she  did  this,  she  said  she  knew  she 
could  wink  her  left  eye,  but  not  her  right!  One  who  is 
resourceful  enough  to  adopt  such  an  ingenious  method  is 
surely  not  less  intelligent  than  the  one  who  is  able  to  respond 
by  a  direct  instead  of  an  intermediate  association. 

It  seems  that  normal  people  never  encounter  a  corre- 
sponding difficulty  in  distinguishing  up  and  down.  The 
writer  has  questioned  several  hundred  without  finding  a 
single  instance,  whereas  a  great  many  have  to  employ 
some  intermediate  association  in  order  to  distinguish  right 
and  left.  It  is  the  "  p's  and  q's  "  that  children  must  be 
told  to  mind;  not  the  "  p's  and  b's."  The  former  is  a  hori- 
zontal, the  latter  a  vertical  distinction. 

Considering  the  difficulty  which  normal  adults  some- 
times have  in  distinguishing  right  and  left,  is  it  fair  to  use 
this  test  as  a  measure  of  intelligence?  We  may  answer  in 
the  affirmative.  It  is  fair  because  normal  adults,  notwith- 


178       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

standing  momentary  uncertainty,  are  invariably  able  to 
make  the  distinction,  if  not  by  direct  association,  then  by 
an  intermediate  one.  We  overlook  the  momentary  confu- 
sion and  regard  only  the  correctness  of  the  response. 
Subjects  who  are  below  middle-grade  imbecile,  however 
long  they  have  lived,  seldom  pass  the  test. 

This  test  found  a  place  in  year  VI  of  Binet's  1908  scale, 
but  was  shifted  to  year  VII  in  the  1911  revision.  The  Stan- 
ford statistics,  and  all  other  available  data,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Bobertag's,  justify  its  retention  in  year  VI. 
It  is  possible  that  the  children  of  different  nations  do  not 
have  equal  opportunity  and  stimulus  for  learning  the  dis- 
tinction between  right  and  left,  but  the  data  show  that  as 
far  as  American  and  English  children  are  concerned  we 
have  a  right  to  expect  this  knowledge  in  children  of  6 
years. 

VI,  2.  Finding  omissions  in  pictures 

Procedure.  Show  the  pictures  to  the  child  one  at  a  time 
in  the  order  in  which  they  are  lettered,  a,  b,  c,  d.  When 
the  first  picture  is  shown  (that  with  the  eye  lacking), 
say:  "  There  is  something  wrong  with  this  face.  It  is  not 
all  there.  Part  of  it  is  left  out.  Look  carefully  and  tell  me 
what  part  of  the  face  is  not  there."  Often  the  child  gives 
an  irrelevant  answer;  as,  "  The  feet  are  gone,"  "  The 
stomach  is  not  there,"  etc.  These  statements  are  true, 
but  they  do  not  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  test,  so 
we  say:  "  No;  I  am  talking  about  the  face.  Look  again 
and  tell  me  what  is  left  out  of  the  face."  If  the  correct 
response  does  not  follow,  we  point  to  the  place  where  the 
eye  should  be  and  say:  "  See,  the  eye  is  gone."  When  picture 
b  is  shown  we  say  merely:  "  What  is  left  out  of  this  face  ?  " 
Likewise  with  picture  c.  For  picture  d  we  say:  "  What 
is  left  out  of  this  picture  ?  "  No  help  of  any  kind  is  given 


TEST  NO.  VI,  2  179 

unless  (if  necessary)  with  the  first  picture.  With  the  others 
we  confine  ourselves  to  the  single  question,  and  the  answer 
should  be  given  promptly,  say  within  twenty  to  twenty- 
five  seconds. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  omission  is  correctly  pointed  out 
in  three  out  of  four  of  the  pictures.  Certain  minor  errors 
we  may  overlook,  such  as  "  eyes  "  instead  of  "  eye  "  for 
the  first  picture;  "  nose  and  one  ear  "  instead  of  merely 
"  nose  "  for  the  third;  "  hands  "  instead  of  "  arms  "  for 
the  fourth,  etc.  Errors  like  the  following,  however,  count 
as  failure:  "  The  other  eye,"  or  "  The  other  ear  "  for  the 
first  or  third;  "  The  ears  "  for  the  fourth,  etc. 

Remarks.  The  test  is  one  of  the  two  or  three  dozen  forms 
of  the  so-called  "  completion  test,"  all  of  which  have  it  in 
common  that  from  the  given  parts  of  a  whole  the  missing 
parts  are  to  be  found.  The  whole  to  be  completed  may  be  a 
word,  a  sentence,  a  story,  a  picture,  a  group  of  pictures, 
an  object,  or  in  fact  almost  anything.  Sometimes  all  the 
parts  of  the  whole  are  given  and  only  the  arrangement  or 
order  is  to  be  found,  as  in  the  test  with  dissected  sentences. 

Further  discussion  of  the  completion  test  will  be  found 
in  connection  with  test  4,  year  XII.  For  the  present  we 
will  only  observe  that  notwithstanding  a  certain  similarity 
among  the  tests  of  this  type,  they  do  not  all  call  into  play 
the  same  mental  processes.  The  factor  most  involved  may 
be  verbal  language  coherence,  visual  perception  of  form, 
the  association  of  abstract  ideas,  etc.  To  pass  Binet's  test 
with  mutilated  pictures  requires,  (1)  that  the  parts  of  the 
picture  be  perceived  as  constituting  a  whole;  and  (2)  that 
the  idea  of  a  human  face  or  form  be  so  easily  and  so  clearly 
reproducible  that  it  may  act,  even  before  it  comes  fully 
into  consciousness,  as  a  model  or  pattern,  for  the  criticism 
of  the  picture  shown.  The  younger  the  child,  the  less 
adequate,  in  this  sense,  is  his  perceptual  familiarity  with 


180       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

common  objects.  In  standardizing  a  series  of  "  absurd 
pictures,"  the  writer  has  found  that  normal  children  of  3 
years  often  see  nothing  wrong  in  a  picture  which  shows  a 
cat  with  two  legs  or  a  hen  with  four  legs.  Such  children 
would,  of  course,  never  mistake  a  cat  for  a  hen.  Their 
trouble  lies  in  the  inability  to  call  up  in  clear  form  a  "  free 
idea  "  of  a  cat  or  a  hen  for  comparison  with  the  perceptual 
presentation  offered  by  the  picture.  Middle-grade  imbeciles 
of  adult  age  have  much  the  same  difficulty  as  normal 
children  of  4  years  in  recognizing  mutilations  or  absurdi- 
ties in  pictures  of  familiar  objects. 

Binet  first  placed  this  test  in  year  VII,  changing  it  to 
year  VIII  in  the  1911  revision.  In  other  revisions  it  has 
been  retained  in  year  VII,  although  all  the  available  statis- 
tics except  Bobertag's  warrant  its  location  in  year  VI. 

VI,  3.  Counting  thirteen  pennies 

Procedure.  The  procedure  is  the  same  as  in  the  test  of 
counting  four  pennies  (year  IV,  test  3).  If  the  first  response 
contains  only  a  minor  error,  such  as  the  omission  of  a 
number  in  counting,  failure  to  tally  with  the  finger,  etc., 
a  second  trial  is  given. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  there  is  one  success  in  two 
trials.  Success  requires  that  the  counting  should  tally  with 
the  pointing.  It  is  not  sufficient  merely  to  state  the  number 
of  pennies  without  pointing,  for  unless  the  child  points  and 
counts  aloud  we  cannot  be  sure  that  his  correct  answer 
may  not  be  the  joint  result  of  two  errors  in  opposite  direc- 
tions and  equal;  for  example,  if  one  penny  were  skipped  and 
another  were  counted  twice  the  total  result  would  still  be 
correct,  but  the  performance  would  not  satisfy  the 
requirements. 

Remarks.  Does  success  in  this  test  depend  upon  intelli- 


TEST  NO.  VI,  4  181 

gence  or  upon  schooling?  The  answer  is,  intelligence  mainly. 
There  are  possibly  a  few  normal  6-year-old  children  who 
could  not  pass  the  test  for  lack  of  instruction,  but  children 
of  this  age  usually  have  enough  spontaneous  interest  in 
numbers  to  acquire  facility  hi  counting  as  far  as  13  without 
formal  teaching.  Certainly,  inability  to  do  so  by  the  age 
of  7  years  is  a  suspicious  sign  unless  the  child's  environment 
has  been  extraordinarily  unfavorable.  On  the  other  hand, 
feeble-minded  adults  of  the  5-year  level  usually  have  to 
have  a  great  deal  of  instruction  before  they  acquire  the 
ability  to  count  13,  and  many  of  them  are  hardly  able  to 
learn  it  at  all.  So  much  does  our  learning  depend  on  original 
endowment. 

Binet  originally  placed  this  test  in  year  VII,  but  moved 
it  to  year  VI  in  1911.  All  the  statistics,  without  exception, 
show  that  this  change  was  justified.  Bobertag  says  that 
nearly  all  7-year-olds  who  are  not  feeble-minded  can 
pass  it,  a  statement  with  which  we  can  fully  agree. 

VI,  4.  Comprehension,  second  degree 

Procedure.  The  questions  used  in  this  year  are:  — 

(a)  "  What  's  the  thing  to  do  if  it  is  raining  when  you  start  to 
school?" 

(b)  "  What 's  the  thing  to  do  if  you  find  that  your  house  is  on  fire  ?  " 

(c)  "  What 's  the  thing  to  do  if  you  are  going  some  place  and  miss 
your  train  (car)?" 

Note  that  the  wording  of  the  first  part  of  the  ques- 
tions is  slightly  different  from  that  in  year  IV,  test  5. 

If  there  is  no  response,  or  if  the  child  looks  puzzled,  the 
question  may  be  repeated  once  or  twice.  The  form  of  the 
question  must  not  under  any  circumstances  be  altered. 
Question  6,  for  example,  would  be  materially  changed  if 
we  should  say:  "  Suppose  you  were  to  come  Jwme  from 


182       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

school  and  find  that  your  house  was  burning  up.  What 
would  you  do  ?  "  The  expression  "  burning  up  "  would 
probably  be  much  less  likely  to  suggest  calling  a  fireman 
than  would  the  words  "  on  fire." 

Scoring.  Two  out  of  three  must  be  answered  correctly. 
The  harder  the  comprehension  questions  are,  the  greater 
the  variety  of  answers  and  the  greater  the  difficulty  of 
scoring.  Because  of  the  difficulty  many  examiners  find  in 
scoring  this  test,  we  will  list  the  most  common  satisfactory, 
unsatisfactory,  and  doubtful  responses  to  each  question. 

(a)  If  it  is  raining  when  you  start  to  school 

Satisfactory.  "Take  umbrella,"  "Bring  a  parasol,"  "Put  on 
rubbers,"  "  Wear  an  overcoat,"  etc.  This  type  of  response  occurred 
61  times  out  of  72  successes.  "Have  my  father  bring  me"  also 
counts  plus. 

Unsatisfactory.  "Go  home,"  "Stay  at  home,"  "Stay  in  the 
house,"  "Have  the  rainbow,"  "Stay  in  school,"  etc.  "Stay  at 
home"  is  the  most  common  failure  and  might  at  first  seem  to  the 
examiner  to  be  a  satisfactory  response.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this 
answer  rests  on  a  slight  misunderstanding  of  the  question,  the 
import  of  which  is  that  one  is  to  go  to  school  and  it  is  raining. 

Doubtful.  "Run"  as  an  answer  is  a  little  more  troublesome.  It 
may  reasonably  be  scored  plus  if  it  can  be  ascertained  that  the 
child  is  accustomed  to  meet  the  situation  in  this  way.  It  is  a  com- 
mon response  with  children  in  those  regions  of  the  Southwest 
where  rains  are  so  infrequent  that  umbrellas  are  rarely  used. 
"Bring  my  lunch"  may  be  considered  a  satisfactory  response  in 
case  the  child  is  in  the  habit  of  so  doing  on  rainy  days. 

(6)  //  you  find  that  your  house  is  on  fire 

Satisfactory.  "Ring  the  fire  alarm,"  "Call  the  firemen,"  "Call 
for  help,"  "Put  water  on  it,"  etc. 

Unsatisfactory.  The  most  common  failure,  accounting  for 
nearly  half  of  all,  is  to  suggest  finding  other  shelter;  e.g.,  "Go  to 
the  hotel,"  "Get  another  house,"  "Stay  with  your  friends," 
"Build  a  new  house,"  etc.  Others  are:  "Tell  them  you  are  sorry 
it  burned  down,"  "Be  careful  and  not  let  it  burn  again,"  "Have 
it  insured,"  "Cry,"  "Call  the  policeman,"  etc. 


TEST  NO.   VI,  4  183 

Doubtful.  Instead  of  suggesting  measures  to  put  out  the  fire,  a 
good  many  children  suggest  mere  escape  or  the  saving  of  house- 
hold articles.  Responses  of  this  type  are:  "Jump  out  of  the  win- 
dows," "Save  yourself,"  "Get  out  as  fast  as  you  can,"  "Save  the 
baby,"  "Get  my  dolls  and  jewelry  and  hurry  and  get  out."  These 
answers  are  about  one  seventh  as  frequent  as  the  perfectly  satis- 
factory ones,  and  the  rule  for  scoring  them  is  a  matter  of  some 
importance.  Under  certain  circumstances  the  logical  thing  to  do 
would  be  to  save  one's  self  or  valuables  without  wasting  time  try- 
ing to  call  help.  There  may  be  no  help  in  reach,  or  a  fire  which  the 
child  imagines  may  be  too  far  along  for  help  to  be  effective.  In 
order  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  doing  a  subject  an  injustice,  it  may 
be  desirable  to  score  such  answers  plus.  We  must  not  be  too 
arbitrary. 

(c)  If  you  miss  your  train 

Satisfactory.  The  answer  we  expect  is,  "Wait  for  another," 
"Take  the  next  car,"  or  something  to  that  effect.  This  type  of 
answer  includes  about  85  per  cent  of  the  responses  which  do  not 
belong  obviously  in  the  unsatisfactory  group.  "Take  a  jitney"  is 
a  modern  variation  of  this  response  which  must  be  counted  as 
satisfactory. 

Unsatisfactory.  These  are  endless.  One  continues  to  meet  new 
examples  of  absurdity,  however  many  children  one  has  tested. 
The  possibilities  are  literally  inexhaustible,  but  the  following  are 
among  the  most  common:  "Wait  for  it  to  come  back,"  "Have  to 
walk,"  "Be  mad,"  "Don't  swear,"  "Run  and  try  to  catch  it," 
"Try  to  jump  on,"  "Don't  go  to  that  place,"  "Go  to  the  next  sta- 
tion," etc. 

Doubtful.  The  main  doubtful  response  is,  "Go  home  again," 
"Come  back  next  day  and  catch  another,"  etc.  In  small  or  isolated 
towns  having  only  one  or  two  trains  per  day,  this  is  the  logical 
thing  to  do,  and  in  such  cases  the  score  is  plus.  Fortunately,  only 
about  one  answer  in  ten  gives  rise  to  any  difference  of  opinion 
among  even  partly  trained  examiners. 

Remarks.  The  three  comprehension  questions  of  this 
group  were  all  suggested  by  Binet  in  1905.  Only  one  of 
them,  however,  "  What  would  you  do  if  you  were  going 
some  place  and  missed  your  train?  "  was  incorporated  in 
the  1908  or  1911  series,  and  this  was  used  in  year  X  with 


184       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

seven  others  much  harder.    The  other  two  remained  un- 
standardized  previous  to  the  Stanford  investigation.1 

VI,  5.  Naming  four  coins 

Procedure.  Show  a  nickel,  a  penny,  a  quarter,  and  a 
dime,  asking  each  time:  "  What  is  that  ?  "  If  the  child  mis- 
understands and  answers,  "  Money,"  or  "  A  piece  of 
money,"  we  say:  "Yes,  but  what  do  you  call  that  piece  of 
money  ?  "  Show  the  corns  always  in  the  order  given  above. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  three  of  the  four  questions 
are  correctly  answered.  Any  correct  designation  of  a  coin 
is  satisfactory,  including  provincialisms  like  "  two  bits  " 
for  the  25-cent  piece,  etc.  If  the  child  changes  his  response 
for  a  coin,  we  count  the  second  answer  and  ignore  the  first. 
No  supplementary  questions  are  permissible. 

Remarks.  Some  of  the  critics  of  the  Binet  scale  regard 
this  test  as  of  little  value,  because,  they  say,  the  ability  to 
identify  pieces  of  money  depends  entirely  on  instruction 
or  other  accidents  of  environment.  The  figures  show, 
however,  that  it  is  not  greatly  influenced  by  differences  of 
social  environment,  although  children  from  poor  homes  do 
slightly  better  with  it  than  those  from  homes  of  wealth 
and  culture.  The  fact  seems  to  be  that  practically  all  chil- 
dren by  the  age  of  6  years  have  had  opportunity  to  learn 
the  names  of  the  smaller  coins,  and  if  they  have  failed  to 
learn  them  it  betokens  a  lack  of  that  spontaneity  of  interest 
in  things  which  we  have  mentioned  so  often  as  a  fundamental 
presupposition  of  intelligence.  It  is  by  no  means  a  test  of 
mere  mechanical  memory. 

This  test  was  given  a  place  in  year  VII  of  Binet's  1908 
scale,  the  coins  used  being  the  1-sou,  2-sous,  10-sous,  and 

1  For  general  discussion  of  the  comprehension  questions  as  a  test,  see 
p.  158. 


TEST  NO.   VI,   6  185 

5-franc  pieces.  It  was  omitted  from  the  Binet  1911  re- 
vision and  also  from  that  of  Goddard.  Kuhlmann  retains 
it  in  year  VII.  Others,  however,  have  required  all  four 
coins  to  be  correctly  named,  and  when  this  standard  is 
used  the  test  is  difficult  enough  for  year  VII.  Germany 
has  six  coins  up  to  and  including  the  1-mark  piece,  all  of 
which  could  be  named  by  76  per  cent  of  Bobertag's  7-year- 
olds.  With  the  coins  and  the  standard  of  scoring  used  in 
the  Stanford  revision  the  test  belongs  well  in  year  VI. 

VI,  6.  Repeating  sixteen  to  eighteen  syllables 
The  sentences  are:  — 

(a)  "  We  are  having  a  fine  time.   We  found  a  little  mouse  in  the 
trap." 

(b)  "  Walter  had  a  fine  time  on  his  vacation.  He  went  fishing  every 
day." 

(c)  "  We  will  go  out  for  a  long  walk.   Please  give  me  my  pretty 
straw  hat." 

Procedure.  The  instructions  should  be  given  as  follows: 
"  Now,  listen.  I  am  going  to  say  something  and  after  I  am 
through  I  want  you  to  say  it  over  just  like  I  do.  Understand  ? 
Listen  carefully  and  be  sure  to  say  exactly  what  I  say." 
Then  read  the  first  sentence  rather  slowly,  in  a  distinct 
voice,  and  with  expression.  If  the  response  is  not  too  bad, 
praise  the  child's  efforts.  Then  proceed  with  the  second  and 
third  sentences,  prefacing  each  with  an  exhortation  to 
"  say  exactly  what  I  say." 

In  this  year  and  in  the  memory-for-sentences  test  of 
later  years  it  is  not  permissible  to  re-read  even  the  first 
sentence.  The  only  reason  for  allowing  a  repetition  of  one 
of  the  sentences  in  the  earlier  test  of  this  kind  was  to 
overcome  the  child's  timidity.  With  children  of  6  years  or 
upward  we  seldom  encounter  the  timidity  which  some- 


180       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

times  makes  it  so  hard  to  secure  responses  in  some  of  the 
tests  of  the  earlier  years. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  at  least  one  sentence  out 
of  three  is  repeated  without  error,  or  if  two  are  repeated 
with  not  more  than  one  error  each.  A  single  omission, 
insertion,  or  transposition  counts  as  an  error.  Faults  of 
<*  of  fourr^  nverW>kf>d.  It  is  not  sufficient 


that  the  thought  be  reproduced  intact;  the  exact  language 
must  be  repeated.  The  responses  should  be  recorded  ver- 
batim. This  is  easily  done  if  record  blanks  used  for  scoring 
have  the  sentences  printed  in  full. 

Remarks.  In  this  test  and  in  later  tests  of  memory  for 
sentences,  it  is  interesting  to  ask  after  each  response: 
"  Did  you  get  it  right?  "  As  in  the  tests  with  digits,  it  is 
an  unfavorable  sign  when  the  child  is  perfectly  satisfied 
with  a  very  poor  response. 

It  is  evident  that  tests  of  this  type  give  opportunity  for 
different  degrees  of  failure.  To  repeat  only  a  half  or  a 
third  of  each  sentence  is  much  more  serious  than  to  make 
but  one  error  in  each  sentence  (one  word  omitted,  inserted, 
or  misplaced).  It  would  'be  possible  to  use  the  same  sen- 
tences at  three  or  four  different  age  levels,  by  setting  the 
appropriate  standard  for  success  at  each  age.  If  the  stand- 
ard is  one  sentence  out  of  three  repeated  with  no  more 
than  two  errors,  the  test  belongs  in  year  V.  If  we  require 
two  absolutely  correct  responses  out  of  three,  the  test 
belongs  at  about  year  VII.  The  shifting  standard  is  ren- 
dered unnecessary,  however,  by  the  use  of  other  tests  of  the 
same  kind,  easier  ones  in  the  lower  years  and  more  difficult 
ones  in  the  upper. 

Sentences  of  sixteen  syllables  found  a  place  in  Binet's 
1908  scale  and  were  correctly  located  in  year  VI,  but  later 
revisions,  including  that  of  Binet,  have  omitted  the  test. 


TEST  NO.  VI,   ALTERNATIVE  187 

VI.  Alternative  test:  forenoon  and  afternoon 

Procedure.  If  it  is  morning,  ask:  "  Is  it  morning  or 
afternoon  ?  "  If  it  is  afternoon,  put  the  question  in  the  re- 
verse form,  "  Is  it  afternoon  or  morning  ?  "  This  precaution 
is  necessary  because  of  the  tendency  of  some  children  to 
choose  always  the  latter  of  two  alternatives.  Do  not  cross- 
question  the  child  or  give  any  suggestion  that  might  afford 
a  clue  as  to  the  correct  answer. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  correct  response  is 
given  with  apparent  assurance.  If  the  child  says  he  is  not 
sure  but  thinks  it  forenoon  (or  afternoon,  as  the  case  may 
be),  we  score  the  response  a  failure  even  if  the  answer  hap- 
pens to  be  correct.  However,  this  type  of  response  is  not 
often  encountered. 

Remarks.  It  is  interesting  to  follow  the  child's  develop- 
ment with  regard  to  orientation  in  time.  This  develop- 
ment proceeds  much  more  slowly  than  we  are  wont  to 
assume.  Certain  distinctions  with  regard  to  space,  as  up 
and  down,  come  much  earlier.  As  Binet  remarks,  schools 
sometimes  try  to  teach  the  events  of  national  history  to 
children  whose  time  orientation  is  so  rudimentary  that  they 
do  not  even  know  morning  from  afternoon ! 

The  test  has  two  rather  serious  faults:  (1)  It  gives  too 
much  play  to  chance,  for  since  only  two  alternatives  are 
offered,  guesses  alone  would  give  about  fifty  per  cent  of 
correct  responses.  (2)  We  cannot  be  sure  that  the  verbal 
distinction  between  forenoon  and  afternoon  always  cor- 
responds to  the  actual  temporal  discrimination  between 
the  two  divisions  of  the  day.  It  is  possible  that  the  temporal 
discrimination  precedes  the  formation  of  the  correct  verbal 
association. 

This  test  was  included  in  the  year  VI  group  of  the  1908 
scale,  but  was  omitted  from  the  1911  revision.  Nearly  all 


188       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

the  data  except  Bobertag's  show  that  it  is  rather  easy  for 
year  VI,  though  too  difficult  for  year  V.  Bobertag's 
figures  would  place  the  test  in  year  VII.  Possibly  the  cor- 
responding German  words  are  not  as  easy  to  learn  as  our 
morning  and  afternoon. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  VII 

VII,  1.  Giving  the  number  of  fingers 

Procedure.  "  How  many  fingers  have  you  on  one  hand  ?  " 
"  How  many  on  the  other  hand  ?  "  "  How  many  on  both 
hands  together  ?  "  If  the  child  begins  to  count  in  response 
to  any  of  the  questions,  say:  "  No,  don't  count  Tell  me 
without  counting."  Then  repeat  the  question. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  all  three  questions  are  answered  cor- 
redly  and  promptly  without  the  necessity  of  counting. 
Some  subjects  do  not  understand  the  question  to  include 
the  thumbs.  We  disregard  this  if  the  number  of  fingers 
exclusive  of  thumbs  is  given  correctly. 

Remarks.  Like  the  two  tests  of  counting  pennies,  this 
one,  also,  throws  light  on  the  child's  spontaneous  interest 
in  numbers.  However,  the  mental  processes  it  calls  into 
play  are  a  little  less  simple  than  those  required  for  mere 
counting.  If  the  child  is  able  to  give  the  number  of  fingers, 
it  is  ordinarily  because  he  has  previously  counted  them  and 
has  remembered  the  result.  The  memory  would  hardly  be 
retained  but  for  a  certain  interest  in  numbers  as  such. 
Middle-grade  imbeciles  of  even  adult  age  seldom  remember 
how  many  fingers  they  have,  however  often  they  may  have 
been  told.  They  are  not  able  to  form  accurate  concepts  of 
other  than  the  simplest  number  relationships,  and  numbers 
have  little  interest  or  meaning  for  them. 

Binet  gave  this  test  a  place  in  year  VII  of  the  1908  series, 


190       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

but  omitted  it  in  the  1911  revision.  Goddard  omits  it, 
while  Kuhlmann  retains  it  in  year  VII,  where,  according  to 
our  own  figures,  it  unmistakably  belongs.  Bobertag  finds  it 
rather  easy  for  year  VII,  though  too  difficult  for  year  VI. 

Our  data  prove  that  this  test  fulfills  the  requirements  of 
a  good  test.  It  shows  a  rapid  but  even  rise  from  year  V  to 
year  VIII  in  the  per  cent  passing,  the  agreement  among 
the  different  testers  is  extraordinarily  close,  and  it  is  rela- 
tively little  influenced  by  training  and  social  environment. 
For  these  reasons,  and  because  it  is  so  easy  to  give  and 
score  with  uniformity,  it  well  deserves  a  place  in  the  scale. 

Vn,  2.  Description  of  pictures 

Procedure.  Use  the  same  pictures  as  in  III,  3,  presenting 
them  always  in  the  following  order:  Dutch  Home,  River 
Scene,  Post-Office.  The  formula  for  the  test  in  this  year  is 
somewhat  different  from  that  of  year  III.  Say:  "  What 
is  this  picture  about  ?  What  is  this  a  picture  of?  "  Use  the 
double  question,  and  follow  the  formula  exactly.  It  would 
ruin  the  test  to  say:  "  Tell  me  everything  you  see  in  this 
picture,"  for  this  form  of  question  tends  to  provoke  the 
enumeration  response  even  with  intelligent  children  of 
this  age. 

When  there  is  no  response,  the  question  may  be  repeated 
as  often  as  is  necessary  to  break  the  silence. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  two  of  the  three  pictures 
are  described  or  interpreted.  Interpretation,  however,  is 
seldom  encountered  at  this  age.  Often  the  response  con- 
sists of  a  mixture  of  enumeration  and  description.  The  rule 
is  that  the  reaction  to  a  picture  should  not  be  scored  plus 
unless  it  is  made  up  chiefly  of  description  (or  interpreta- 
tion). 

Study  of  the  following  samples  of  satisfactory  responses 


TEST  NO.   VII,  2  191 

will  give  a  fairly  definite  idea  of  the  requirements  for  satis- 
factory description:  — 

Picture  (a):  satisfactory  responses 

"The  little  girl  is  crying.  The  mother  is  looking  at  her  and 
there  is  a  little  kitten  on  the  floor." 

"The  mother  is  watching  the  baby,  and  the  cat  is  looking  at  a 
hole  in  the  floor,  and  there  is  a  lamp  and  a  table  so  I  guess  it's  a 
dining  room." 

"The  little  girl  has  wooden  shoes.  Her  mother  is  sitting  in  a 
chair  and  has  a  funny  cap  on  her  head.  The  cat  is  sitting  on  the 
floor  and  there  is  a  basket  by  the  mother  and  a  table  with  some- 
thing on  it." 

"It's  about  Holland.  The  little  Dutch  girl  is  crying  and  the 
mother  is  sitting  down." 

"A  little  Dutch  girl  and  her  mother  and  that's  a  kitten,  and 
the  little  girl  has  her  hand  up  as  if  she  was  doing  something  to  her 
forehead.  She  has  shoes  that  curve  up  in  front." 

"Dutch  lady,  and  the  little  baby  does  n't  want  to  come  to  her 
mother  and  the  cat  is  looking  for  some  mice." 

"The  mother  is  sitting  down  and  the  little  one  has  her  hands 
up  over  her  eyes.  There's  a  pail  by  the  mother  and  a  chair  with 
some  clothes  on  it  and  a  table  with  dishes.  And  here's  a  lamp  and 
here's  some  curtains." 

Picture  (b):  satisfactory  responses 

"Some  people  in  a  boat.  The  water  is  high  and  if  they  don't 
look  out  the  boat  will  tip  over." 

"Some  Indians  and  a  lady  and  man.  They  are  in  a  boat  on  the 
river  and  the  boat  is  about  to  upset,  and  there  are  some  dead 
trees  going  to  fall." 

"There's  a  lot  of  water  coming  up  to  drown  the  people.  There 
are  two  people  hi  the  boat  and  the  boat  is  sinking." 

"There's  some  people  sailing  in  a  canoe  and  the  woman  is 
leaning  over  on  the  man  because  she  is  afraid." 

"There's  an  Indian  and  some  white  people  in  the  boat.  I  sup- 
pose they  are  out  for  a  ride  in  a  canoe." 

"Picture  about  some  man  and  lady  in  a  canoe  and  going  down 
to  the  sea." 

"They  are  taking  a  boat  ride  on  the  ocean  and  the  water  is  up 


192       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

so  high  that  one  of  them  is  scared.  Here  are  some  trees  and  two  of 
them  are  going  to  fall  down.  Here's  a  little  place  or  bridge  you  can 
stand  on.  The  man  is  touching  this  one's  head  and  this  one  has 
his  hand  on  the  cover." 

"The  water  is  splashing  all  over.  There's  trees  on  this  bank  and 
there's  a  rock  and  some  trees  falling  down.  The  people  have  a 
blanket  over  them." 

Picture  (c):  satisfactory  responses 

"A  man  selling  eggs  and  two  men  reading  the  paper  together 
and  two  men  watching." 

"A  few  men  reading  a  newspaper  and  one  has  a  basket  of  eggs 
and  this  one  has  been  fishing." 

"There's  a  man  with  a  basket  of  eggs  and  another  is  reading  the 
paper  and  a  woman  is  hanging  out  clothes.  There's  a  house  near." 

"There's  a  man  trying  to  read  the  paper  and  the  others  want  to 
read  it  too.  Here  's  a  lady  walking  up  to  the  barn.  There  are 
houses  over  there  and  one  man  has  a  basket." 

"There's  a  big  brick  house  and  five  men  by  it  and  a  man  with  a 
basket  of  eggs  and  a  post-office  sign  and  a  lady  going  home." 

"They  are  all  looking  at  the  paper.  He  is  looking  over  the  other 
man's  shoulder  and  this  one  is  looking  at  the  back  of  the  paper. 
There's  a  woman  cleaning  up  her  back  yard  and  some  coops  for 
hens." 

"A  man  reading  a  paper,  a  man  with  eggs,  a  woman  and  a  tree 
and  another  house.  That  man  has  an  apron  on.  This  is  the  post- 
office." 

Unsatisfactory  responses  are  those  made  up  entirely  or 
mainly  of  enumeration.  A  phrase  or  two  of  description 
intermingled  with  a  larger  amount  of  enumeration  counts 
minus.  Sometimes  the  description  is  satisfactory  as  far 
as  it  goes,  but  is  exceedingly  brief.  In  such  cases  a  little 
tactful  urging  ("  Go  ahead,"  etc.)  will  extend  the  response 
sufficiently  to  reveal  its  true  character. 

Remarks.  Description  is  better  than  enumeration  be- 
cause it  involves  putting  the  elements  of  a  picture  to- 
gether in  a  simple  way  or  noting  their  qualities.  This 
requires  a  higher  type  of  mental  association  (combinative 


TEST  NO.   VII,  3  193 

power)  than  mere  enumeration.  An  unusually  complete 
description  indicates  relative  wealth  of  mental  content  and 
facility  of  association. 

Binet  placed  this  test  in  year  VII,  and  it  seems  to  have 
been  retained  in  this  location  in  all  revisions  except  Bober- 
tag's.  However,  the  statistics  of  various  workers  show  much 
disagreement.  Lack  of  agreement  is  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  different  investigators  have  used  different 
series  of  pictures  and  doubtless  also  different  standards  for 
success.  The  pictures  used  by  Binet  have  little  action  or 
detail  and  are  therefore  rather  difficult  for  description.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Jingleman-Jack  pictures  used  by  Kuhl- 
mann  represent  such  familiar  situations  and  have  so  much 
action  that  even  5-  or  6-year  intelligence  seldom  fails  with 
them.  The  pictures  we  employ  belong  without  question 
in  year  VII. 

No  better  proof  than  the  above  could  be  found  to  show 
how  ability  of  a  given  kind  does  not  make  its  appearance 
suddenly.  There  is  no  one  time  in  the  life  of  even  a  single 
child  when  the  power  to  describe  pictures  suddenly  de- 
velops. On  the  contrary,  pictures  of  a  certain  type  will 
ordinarily  provoke  description,  rather  than  enumeration, 
as  early  as  5  or  6  years;  others  not  before  7  or  8  years, 
or  even  later. 

VII,  3.  Repeating  five  digits 

Procedure.  Use:  3-1-7-5-9;  4-2-3-8-5;  9-8-1-7-6. 
Tell  the  child  to  listen  and  to  say  after.you  just  what  you 
say.  Then  read  the  first  series  of  digits  at  a  slightly  faster 
rate  than  one  per  second,  in  a  distinct  voice,  and  with  per- 
fectly uniform  emphasis.  Avoid  rhythm. 

In  previous  tests  with  digits,  it  was  permissible  to  re- 
read the  first  series  if  the  child  refused  to  respond.  In 
this  year,  and  in  the  digits  tests  of  later  years,  this  is  not 


194       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

permissible.  Warning  is  not  given  as  to  the  number  of 
digits  to  be  repeated.  Before  reading  each  series,  get  the 
child's  attention.  Do  not  stare  at  the  child  during  the 
response,  as  this  is  disconcerting.  Look  aside  or  at  the 
record  sheet. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  child  repeats  correctly,  after  a 
single  reading,  one  series  out  of  the  three  series  given.  The 
order  must  be  correct. 

Remarks.  Psychologically  the  repetition  of  digits  differs 
from  the  repetition  of  sentences  mainly  in  the  fact  that 
digits  have  less  meaning  (fewer  associations)  than  the  words 
of  a  sentence.  It  is  because  they  are  not  as  well  knit  together 
in  meaning  that  three  digits  tax  the  memory  as  much  as 
six  syllables  making  up  a  sentence. 

Testing  auditory  memory  for  digits  is  one  of  the  oldest 
of  intelligence  tests.  It  is  easy  to  give  and  lends  itself  well 
to  exact  quantitative  standardization.  Its  value  has  been 
questioned,  however,  on  two  grounds:  (1)  That  it  is  not 
a  test  of  pure  memory,  but  depends  largely  on  attention; 
and  (2)  that  the  results  are  too  much  influenced  by  the 
child's  type  of  imagery.  As  to  the  first  objection,  it  is 
true  that  more  than  one  mental  function  is  brought  into 
play  by  the  test.  The  same  may  be  said  of  every  other  test 
in  the  Binet  scale  and  for  that  matter  of  any  test  that 
could  be  devised.  It  is  impossible  to  isolate  any  function 
for  separate  testing.  In  fact,  the  functions  called  memory, 
attention,  perception,  judgment,  etc.,  never  operate  in 
isolation.  There  are  no  separate  and  special  "  faculties  " 
corresponding  to  such  terms,  which  are  merely  convenient 
names  for  characterizing  mental  processes  of  various  types. 
In  any  test  it  is  "  general  ability  "  which  is  operative,  per- 
haps now  chiefly  in  remembering,  at  another  time  chiefly 
in  sensory  discrimination,  again  in  reasoning,  etc. 

The  second  objection,  that  the  test  is  largely  invalidated 


TEST  NO.  VH,  3  195 

by  the  existence  of  imagery  types,  is  not  borne  out  by  the 
facts.  Experiments  have  shown  that  pure  imagery  types  are 
exceedingly  rare,  and  that  children,  especially,  are  charac- 
terized by  "  mixed  "  imagery.  There  are  probably  few  sub- 
jects so  lacking  in  auditory  imagery  as  to  be  placed  at  a 
serious  disadvantage  in  this  test. 

Lengthening  a  series  by  the  addition  of  a  single  digit 
adds  greatly  to  the  difficulty.  While  four  digits  can  usually 
be  repeated  by  children  of  4  years,  five  digits  belong  in 
year  VII  and  six  in  year  X. 

It  is  always  interesting  to  note  the  type  of  errors  made. 
The  most  common  error  is  to  omit  one  or  more  of  the  digits, 
usually  in  the  first  part  of  the  series.  If  the  child's  ability 
is  decidedly  below  the  test  he  may  give  only  the  last  two 
or  three  out  of  the  five  or  six  heard.  Substitutions  are  also 
quite  frequent,  and  if  so  many  substitutions  are  made  as 
to  give  a  series  quite  unlike  that  which  the  child  has  heard, 
it  is  an  unfavorable  sign,  indicating  weakness  of  the  critical 
sense  which  is  so  often  found  with  low-level  intelligence. 
In  case  of  extreme  weakness  of  the  power  of  auto-criticism, 
the  child  in  response  to  the  series  9-8-1-7-6-,  may  say 
1-2-3-4-5-6,  or  perhaps  merely  a  couple  of  digits  like  8-6, 
and  still  express  complete  satisfaction  with  his  absurd  re- 
sponse. After  each  series,  therefore,  the  examiner  should 
say,  "  Was  it  right  ?  "  1  Very  young  subjects,  however, 
have  a  tendency  to  answer  "  yes  "  to  any  question  of  this 
type,  and  it  is  therefore  best  not  to  call  for  criticism  of  a 
performance  below  the  age  of  6  or  7  years. 

Digit  series  of  a  given  length  are  not  always  of  equal  dif- 
ficulty, and  for  this  reason  it  is  never  wise  to  use  series 
improvised  at  the  moment  of  the  experiment.  We  must 
avoid  especially  series  of  regularly  ascending  or  descending 

1  "  Wat  it  wrong  ?  "  is  not  an  equivalent  question  and  should  not  be 
used. 


196       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

value,  the  repetition  at  regular  intervals  of  a  particular 
digit,  and  all  other  peculiarities  of  arrangement  which  would 
favor  the  grouping  of  the  digits  for  easier  retention. 

It  remains  to  mention  two  or  three  further  cautions  in 
regard  to  procedure.  It  is  best  to  begin  with  a  series  about 
one  digit  below  the  child's  expected  ability.  If  the  child 
has  a  probable  intelligence  of  about  6  or  7  years,  we  should 
begin  with  four  digits;  in  case  of  probable  10-year  intelli- 
gence we  begin  with  five  digits,  etc.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
should  avoid  beginning  too  far  down,  because  then  the  re- 
sult is  too  much  complicated  by  the  effects  of  practice  and 
fatigue. 

It  is  not  necessary,  and  often  it  is  not  expedient,  to  give 
the  digits  tests  of  all  the  different  years  in  succession;  that 
is,  without  other  tests  intervening.  While  this  may  be  per- 
missible with  older  children,  in  young  children  the  power 
of  sustained  attention  is  so  weak  that  no  single  kind  of  test 
should  occupy  more  than  two  or  three  minutes.  Children 
below  6  or  7  years  should  ordinarily  be  given  the  tests 
in  the  order  in  which  they  are  listed  in  the  record  booklet. 

In  his  1911  revision  of  the  scale  Binet  unfortunately 
shifted  this  test  from  year  VII  to  year  VIII.  Goddard  fol- 
lows his  example,  but  Kuhlmann  retains  it  in  year  VII. 
The  data  from  more  than  a  dozen  leading  investigations 
in  America,  England,  and  Germany  agree  in  showing  that 
the  test  should  remain  in  year  VII. 

Vn,  4.  Tying  a  bow-knot 

Procedure.  Prepare  a  shoestring  tied  in  a  bow-knot 
around  a  stick.  The  knot  should  be  an  ordinary  "  double 
bow,"  with  wings  not  over  three  or  four  inches  long.  Make 
this  ready  in  advance  of  the  experiment  and  show  the  child 
only  the  completed  knot. 


TEST  NO.   VII,  4  197 

Place  the  model  before  the  subject  with  the  wings  pointing 
to  the  right  and  left,  and  say:  "You  know  what  kind  of 
knot  this  is,  don't  you  ?  It  is  a  bow-knot.  I  want  you  to 
take  this  other  piece  of  string  and  tie  the  same  kind  of  knot 
around  my  finger."  At  the  same  time  give  the  child  a  piece 
of  shoestring,  of  the  same  length  as  that  which  is  tied  around 
the  stick,  and  hold  out  a  finger  pointed  toward  the  child 
and  in  convenient  position  for  the  operation.  It  is  better 
to  have  the  subject  tie  the  string  around  the  examiner's 
finger  than  around  a  pencil  or  other  object  because  the  latter 
often  falls  out  of  the  string  and  is  otherwise  awkward  to 
handle. 

Some  children  who  assert  that  they  do  not  know  how  to 
tie  a  bow-knot  are  sometimes  nevertheless  successful  when 
urged  to  try.  It  is  always  necessary,  therefore,  to  secure 
an  actual  trial. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  a  double  bow-knot  (both 
ends  folded  in)  is  made  in  not  more  than  a  minute.  A  single 
bow-knot  (only  one  end  folded  in)  counts  half  credit,  be- 
cause children  are  often  accustomed  to  use  the  single  bow 
altogether.  The  usual  plain  common  knot,  which  precedes 
the  bow-knot  proper,  must  not  be  omitted  if  the  response 
is  to  count  as  satisfactory,  for  without  this  preliminary 
plain  knot  a  bow-knot  will  not  hold  and  is  of  no  value.  To 
be  satisfactory  the  knot  should  also  be  drawn  up  reason- 
ably close,  not  left  gaping. 

Remarks.  This  test,  which  had  not  before  been  stand- 
ardized, was  suggested  to  the  writer  by  the  late  Dr.  Huey, 
who  in  a  conversation  once  remarked  upon  the  frequent 
inability  of  feeble-minded  adults  to  perform  the  little  motor 
tasks  which  are  universally  learned  by  normal  persons  in 
childhood.  The  test  was  therefore  incorporated  in  the 
Stanford  trial  series  of  1913-14  and  tried  with  370  non- 
selected  children  within  two  months  of  the  6th,  7th,  8th, 


198       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

or  9th  birthday.  It  was  expected  that  the  test  would  prob- 
ably be  found  to  belong  at  about  the  8-year  level,  but  it 
proved  to  be  easy  enough  for  year  VII,  where  69  per  cent 
of  the  children  passed  it.  Only  35  per  cent  of  the  6-year- 
olds  succeeded,  but  after  that  age  the  per  cent  passing  in- 
creased rapidly  to  94  per  cent  at  9  years. 

This  little  experiment,  simple  as  it  is,  seems  to  fulfill 
reasonably  well  the  requirements  of  a  good  test.  The  main 
objection  which  might  be  brought  against  it  is  that  it  is 
much  subject  to  the  influence  of  training.  If  this  were  true 
in  any  marked  degree,  the  mentally  retarded  children  of 
7-year  intelligence  should  be  expected  to  succeed  better 
with  it  than  mentally  advanced  children  of  the  same 
mental  level,  since  the  former  would  have  had  at  least  two 
or  three  years  more  in  which  to  learn  the  task.  A  com- 
parison of  the  two  groups,  however,  shows  no  great  dif- 
ference. The  factor  of  age,  apart  from  mental  age,  affects 
the  results  so  little  that  it  is  evident  we  have  here  a  real 
test  of  intelligence. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  easy  to  imagine  a  child  of  7 
years  who  had  not  had  reasonable  opportunity  to  make  the 
acquaintance  of  bow-knots  or  to  learn  to  tie  them.  But  such 
children  are  seldom  encountered  in  the  ages  above  6  or  7. 
Of  68  7-year-olds  who  were  asked  whether  they  had  ever 
seen  a  bow-knot  ("  a  knot  like  that  ")  only  two  replied 
in  the  negative.  It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  specific 
instruction  and  special  stimulus  to  practice  do  play  a 
certain  part.  This  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  girls  excel 
the  boys  somewhat  each  age,  doubtless  because  bow-knots 
play  a  larger  role  in  feminine  apparel.  Social  status  af- 
fects the  results  in  only  a  moderate  degree,  though  it 
might  be  supposed  that  poor  ragamuffins,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  children  of  the  very  rich,  on  the  other,  would  both 
make  a  poor  showing  in  this  test;  the  former  because  of 


TEST  NO.   VH,  5  199 

their  scanty  apparel,  the  latter  because  they  sometimes 
have  servants  to  dress  them. 

The  following  are  probably  the  chief  factors  determining 
success  with  this  test:  (1)  Interest  in  common  objective 
things;  (2)  ability  to  form  permanent  associative  connec- 
tions between  successive  motor  coordinations  (memory 
for  a  series  of  acts);  and  (3)  skill  in  the  acquisition  of 
voluntary  motor  control.  The  last  factor  is  probably  much 
less  important  than  the  other  two.  Motor  awkwardness 
often  prolongs  the  time  from  the  usual  ten  or  fifteen  seconds 
to  thirty  or  forty  seconds,  but  it  is  rarely  a  cause  of  a  fail- 
ure. The  important  thing  is  to  be  able  to  reproduce  the 
appropriate  succession  of  acts,  acts  which  nearly  all  chil- 
dren of  7  years,  under  the  joint  stimulus  of  example  and 
spontaneous  interest,  have  before  performed  or  tried  to 
perform. 

VII,  5.  Giving  differences  from  memory 

Procedure.  Say:  "  What  is  the  difference  between  a  fly 
and  a  butterfly  ?"  If  the  child  does  not  seem  to  understand, 
say:  "You  know  flies,  do  you  not?  You  have  seen  flies? 
And  you  know  the  butterflies!  Now,  tell  me  the  difference 
between  a  fly  and  a  butterfly"  Proceed  in  the  same  way 
with  stone  and  egg,  and  wood  and  glass.  A  little  coaxing  is 
sometimes  necessary  to  secure  a  response,  but  supplemen- 
tary questions  and  suggestions  of  every  kind  are  to  be 
avoided.  For  example,  it  would  not  be  permissible  for  the 
examiner  to  say:  "  Which  is  larger,  a  fly  or  a  butterfly?  " 
This  would  give  the  child  his  cue  and  he  would  immediately 
answer,  "  A  butterfly."  The  child  must  be  left  to  find  a 
difference  by  himself.  Sometimes  a  difference  is  given, 
but  without  any  indication  as  to  its  direction,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, "  One  is  bigger  than  the  other  "  (for  fly  and  butter- 
fly). It  is  then  permissible  to  ask:  "  Which  is  bigger?  " 


200       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Scoring.  Passed  if  a  real  difference  is  given  in  two  out  of 
three  comparisons.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  that  an 
essential  difference  be  given;  the  difference  may  be  trivial, 
only  it  must  be  a  real  one.  The  following  are  samples  of 
satisfactory  and  unsatisfactory  responses :  — 

Fly  and  butterfly 

Satisfactory.  "Butterfly  is  larger."  "Butterfly  has  bigger 
wings."  "Fly  is  black  and  a  butterfly  is  not."  "Butterfly  is  yellow 
(or  white,  etc.)  and  fly  is  black."  "Fly  bites  you  and  butterfly 
don't."  "Butterfly  has  powder  on  its  wings,  fly  does  not."  "Fly 
flies  straighter."  "Butterfly  is  outdoors  and  a  fly  is  in  the  house." 
"Flies  are  more  dangerous  to  our  health."  "Flies  haven't  any- 
thing to  sip  honey  with."  "Butterfly  does  n't  live  as  long  as  a  fly." 
"Butterfly  comes  from  a  caterpillar." 

Sometimes  a  double  contrast  is  meant,  but  not  fully  expressed; 
as,  "A  fly  is  small  and  a  butterfly  is  pretty."  Here  the  thought  is 
probably  correct,  only  the  language  is  awkward. 

Of  102  correct  responses,  70  were  in  terms  of  size,  or  size  plus 
color  or  form;  12  were  in  terms  of  both  form  and  color;  6  in  terms  of 
color  alone;  and  the  rest  scattered  among  such  responses  as  those 
mentioned  above. 

Unsatisfactory.  These  are  mostly  misstatements  of  facts;  as: 
"Fly  is  bigger."  "Fly  has  legs  and  butterfly  has  n't."  "Butterfly 
has  no  feet  and  fly  has."  "Butterfly  makes  butter."  "  Fly  is  a  fly 
and  a  butterfly  is  not."  Failures  due  to  misstatement  of  fact  are 
of  endless  variety.  If  an  indefinite  response  is  given,  like  "The 
fly  is  different,"  or  "They  don't  look  alike,"  we  ask,  "How  is  it 
different  ?  "  or,  "  Why  don't  they  look  alike  ?"  It  is  satisfactory  if  the 
child  then  gives  a  correct  answer. 

Stone  and  egg 

Satisfactory.  "Stone  is  harder."  "Egg  is  softer."  "Egg  breaks 
easier."  "Egg  breaks  and  stone  doesn't."  "Stone  is  heavier." 
"Egg  is  white  and  stone  is  not."  "Egg  has  a  shell  and  stone  does 
not."  "Eggs  have  a  white  and  a  yellow  in  them."  "You  put  eggs 
in  a  pudding."  "An  egg  is  rounder  than  a  stone."  We  may  also 
accept  statements  which  are  only  qualifiedly  true;  as,  "You  can 
break  an  egg,  but  not  a  stone."  Likewise  double  but  incomplete 


TEST  NO.   VII,  5  201 

comparisons  are  satisfactory;  as,  "An  egg  you  fry  and  a  stone  you 
throw,"  "A  stone  is  tough  and  an  egg  you  eat,"  etc. 

A  little  over  three  fourths  of  the  comparisons  made  by  children 
of  6,  7,  and  8  years  are  in  terms  of  hardness.  The  other  responses 
are  widely  scattered. 

Unsatisfactory.  "A  stone  is  bigger  (or  smaller)  than  an  egg." 
"A  stone  is  square  and  an  egg  is  round."  "  An  egg  is  yellow  and  a 
stone  is  white."  "Stones  are  red  (or  black,  etc.)  and  eggs  are 
white."  "An  egg  is  to  eat  and  a  stone  is  to  plant."  "An  egg  is 
round  and  a  stone  is  sometimes  round." 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  above  responses  are  partly  true  and 
partly  false.  The  error  they  contain  renders  them  unacceptable. 
Most  of  the  failures  are  due  to  misstatements  as  to  size,  shape,  or 
color,  but  occasionally  one  meets  a  bizarre  answer. 

Wood  and  glass 

Satisfactory.  "Glass  breaks  easier  than  wood."  "Glass  breaks 
and  wood  does  not."  "Wood  is  stronger  than  glass."  "Glass  you 
can  see  through  and  wood  you  can't."  "  Glass  cuts  you  and  wood 
does  n't."  "You  get  splinters  from  wood  and  you  don't  from  glass." 
"Glass  melts  and  wood  does  n't."  "Wood  burns  and  glass 
doesn't."  "Wood  has  bark  and  glass  has  n't."  " Wood  grows  and 
glass  does  n't."  "Glass  is  heavier  than  wood."  "Glass  glistens  in 
the  sun  and  wood  does  not." 

An  incomplete  double  comparison  is  also  counted  satisfactory; 
as,  "Wood  you  can  burn  and  glass  you  can  see  through." 

Unsatisfactory.  "Wood  is  black  and  glass  is  white."  (Color 
differences  are  always  unsatisfactory  in  this  comparison  unless 
transparency  is  also  mentioned.)  "Glass  is  square  and  wood  is 
round."  "  Glass  is  bigger  than  wood  "  (or  vice  versa).  "  Wood  is  ob- 
long and  glass  is  square."  "Glass  is  thin  and  wood  is  thick." 
"Wood  is  made  out  of  trees  and  glass  out  of  windows."  "There  is 
no  glass  in  wood." 

The  two  most  frequent  types  of  failures  are  misstatements  re- 
garding color  and  thickness.  The  other  failures  are  widely  scattered. 

Remarks.  The  test  is  one  which  all  the  critics  agree  in 
commending,  largely  because  it  is  so  little  influenced  by 
ordinary  school  experience.  Its  excellence  lies  mainly, 
however,  in  the  fact  that  it  throws  light  upon  the  character 


,  ».-!    »(     I  t  ** 


202       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

of  the  child's  higher  thought  processes,  for  thinking  means 
essentially  the  association  of  ideas  on  the  basis  of  differ- 
ences or  similarities.  Nearly  all  thought  processes,  from 
the  most  complex  to  the  very  simplest,  involve  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  types  of  associa- 
tion. They  are  involved  in  the  simple  judgments  made  by 
children,  hi  the  appreciation  of  puns,  in  mechanical  inven- 
tions, in  the  creation  of  poetry,  in  the  scientific  classifica- 
tion of  natural  phenomena,  and  in  the  origination  of  the 
hypotheses  of  science  or  philosophy. 

The  ability  to  note  differences  precedes  somewhat  the 
ability  to  note  resemblances,  though  the  contrary  has  some- 
times been  asserted  by  logician-psychologists.  The  diffi- 
culty of  the  test  is  greatly  increased  by  the  fact  that  the 
objects  to  be  compared  are  not  present  to  the  senses, 
which  means  that  the  free  ideas  must  be  called  up  for 
comparison  and  contrast.  Failure  may  result  either  from 
weakness  in  the  power  of  ideational  representation  of  ob- 
jects, or  from  the  inadequacy  of  the  associations  themselves, 
or  from  both.  Probably  both  factors  are  usually  involved. 

Intellectual  development  is  especially  evident  in  in- 
creased ability  to  note  essential  differences  and  likenesses, 
as  contrasted  with  those  which  are  trivial,  superficial,  and 
accidental.  To  distinguish  an  egg  from  a  stone  on  the  basis 
of  one  being  organic,  the  other  inorganic  matter  requires 
far  higher  intelligence  than  to  distinguish  them  on  the 
basis  of  shape,  color,  fragibility,  etc.  It  is  not  till  well 
toward  the  adult  stage  that  the  ability  to  give  very  essen- 
tial likenesses  and  differences  becomes  prominent,  and  when 
we  get  a  comparison  of  this  type  from  a  child  of  7  or  8 
years  it  is  a  very  favorable  sign. 

It  would  be  well  worth  while  to  standardize  a  new  test 
of  this  kind  for  use  in  the  upper  years  and  especially  adapted 
to  display  the  ability  to  give  essential  likenesses  and  dif- 


TEST  NO.   VH,  5  203 

ferences.  At  year  VII  we  must  accept  as  satisfactory  any 
real  difference. 

One  point  remains.  In  the  tests  of  giving  differences  and 
similarities,  it  is  well  to  make  note  of  any  tendency  to 
stereotypy,  by  which  is  meant  the  mechanical  reappearance 
of  the  same  idea,  or  element,  in  successive  responses.  For 
example,  the  child  begins  by  comparing  fly  and  butterfly 
on  the  basis  of  size;  as,  "A  butterfly  is  bigger  than  a  fly." 
So  far,  this  is  quite  satisfactory;  but  the  child  with  a  ten- 
dency to  stereotypy  finds  himself  unable  to  get  away 
from  the  dominating  idea  of  size  and  continues  to  make  it 
the  basis  of  the  other  comparisons:  "A  stone  is  larger 
than  an  egg,"  "  Wood  is  larger  than  glass,"  etc.  In  case  of 
stereotypy  in  all  three  responses,  we  should  have  to  score 
the  total  response  failure  even  though  the  idea  employed 
happened  to  fit  all  three  parts  of  the  question.  As  a  rule 
it  is  encountered  only  with  very  young  children  or  with 
older  children  who  are  mentally  retarded.  It  is  therefore 
an  unfavorable  sign. 

Although  this  test  has  been  universally  used  in  year  VIII, 
all  the  available  statistics,  with  the  exception  of  Bobertag's 
and  Bloch's,  indicate  that  it  is  decidedly  too  easy  for  that 
year.  Binet  himself  says  that  nearly  all  7-year-olds  pass 
it.  Goddard  finds  97  per  cent  passing  at  year  VIII,  and 
Dougherty  90  per  cent  at  year  VI.  With  the  standard  of 
scoring  given  in  the  present  revision,  and  with  the  substitu- 
tion of  stone  and  egg  instead  of  the  more  difficult  paper 
and  cloth,  the  test  is  unquestionably  easy  enough  for 
year  VII. 


204      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Vn,  6.  Copying  a  diamond 

Procedure.  On  a  white  cardboard  draw  in  heavy  black 
lines  a  diamond  with  the  longer  diagonal  three  inches  and 
the  shorter  diagonal  an  inch  and  a  half.  The  specially 
prepared  record  booklet  contains  the  diamond  as  well  as 
many  other  conveniences. 

Place  the  model  before  the  child  with  the  longer  diagonal 
pointing  directly  toward  him,  and  giving  him  pen  and  ink 
and  paper,  say:  "  /  want  you  to  draw  one  exactly  like  this." 
Give  three  trials,  saying  each  time:  "  Make  it  exactly  like 
this  one."  In  repeating  the  above  formula,  merely  point  to 
the  model;  do  not  pass  the  fingers  around  its  edge. 

Unlike  the  test  of  copying  a  square  in  year  IV,  there  is 
seldom  any  difficulty  in  getting  the  child  to  try  this  one.  By 
the  age  of  7  the  child  has  grown  much  less  timid  and  has 
become  more  accustomed  to  the  use  of  writing  materials. 

Note  whether  the  child  draws  each  part  carefully,  look- 
ing at  the  model  from  time  to  time,  or  whether  the  strokes 
are  made  in  a  more  or  less  haphazard  manner  with  only  an 
initial  glance  at  the  original. 

After  each  trial,  say  to  the  child:  "Is  it  good?  "  And 
after  the  three  copies  have  been  made  say:  "  Which  one  is 
the  best  ?  "  Retarded  children  are  sometimes  entirely  satis- 
fied with  the  most  nondescript  drawings  imaginable,  but 
they  are  more  likely  correctly  to  pick  out  the  best  of  three 
than  to  render  a  correct  judgment  about  the  worth  of  each 
drawing  separately. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  two  of  the  three  drawings 
are  at  least  as  good  as  those  marked  satisfactory  on  the 
score  card.  The  diamond  should  be  drawn  approximately 
in  the  correct  position,  and  the  diagonals  must  not  be  re- 
versed. Disregard  departures  from  the  model  with  respect 
to  size. 


TEST  NO.  VH,  ALTERNATIVE  1  205 

Remarks.  The  test  is  a  good  one.  Age  and  training, 
apart  from  intelligence,  affect  it  only  moderately.  There 
are  few  adult  imbeciles  of  6-year  intelligence  who  are  able 
to  pass  it,  while  but  few  subjects  who  have  reached  the 
8-year  level  fail  on  it.1 

This  test  was  located  in  year  VII  of  the  1908  scale,  but 
was  shifted  to  year  VI  in  Binet's  1911  revision.  The  change 
was  without  justification,  for  Binet  expressly  states,  both 
in  1908  and  1911,  that  only  half  of  the  6-year-olds  succeed 
with  it.  The  large  majority  of  investigations  have  given 
too  low  a  proportion  of  successes  at  6  years  to  warrant  its 
location  at  that  age,  particularly  if  pen  is  required  instead 
of  pencil.  Location  at  year  VI  would  be  warranted  only 
on  the  condition  that  the  use  of  pencil  be  permitted  and 
only  one  success  required  in  three  trials. 


VTI,  Alternative  test  1 :  naming  the  days  of  the  week 

Procedure.  Say:  "You  know  the  days  of  the  week,  do 
you  not  ?  Name  the  days  of  the  week  for  me"  Sometimes  the 
child  begins  by  naming  various  annual  holidays,  as  Christ- 
mas, Fourth  of  July,  etc.  Perhaps  he  has  not  comprehended 
the  task;  at  any  rate,  we  give  him  one  more  trial  by  stop- 
ping him  and  saying:  "No;  that  is  not  what  I  mean.  1 
want  you  to  name  the  days  of  tlie  week"  No  supplementary 
questions  are  permissible,  and  we  must  be  careful  not  to 
show  approval  or  disapproval  in  our  looks  as  the  child  is 
giving  his  response. 

If  the  days  have  been  named  in  correct  order,  we  check 
up  the  response  to  see  whether  the  real  order  of  days  is 
known  or  whether  the  names  have  only  been  repeated  me- 
chanically. This  is  done  by  asking  the  following  questions: 

1  For  further  discussion  of  drawing  tests,  see  V,  1,  and  X,  3. 


206      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

"  What  day  comes  before  Tuesday  ?  "  "  What  day  comes 
before  Thursday  ?  "  "  What  day  comes  before  Friday  ?  " 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if,  within  fifteen  seconds,  the 
days  of  the  week  are  all  named  in  correct  order,  and  if  the 
child  succeeds  in  at  least  two  of  the  three  check  questions. 
We  disregard  the  point  of  beginning. 

Remarks.  The  test  has  been  criticized  as  too  depend- 
ent on  rote  memory.  Bobertag  says  a  child  may  pass  it 
without  having  any  adequate  conception  of  "  week,"  "  yes- 
terday," "  day  before  yesterday,"  etc.  This  criticism  holds 
if  the  test  is  given  according  to  the  older  procedure,  but 
does  not  apply  with  the  procedure  above  recommended. 
The  "  checking-up  "  questions  enable  us  at  once  to  dis- 
tinguish responses  that  are  given  by  rote  from  those  which 
rest  upon  actual  knowledge. 

The  test  has  been  shown  to  be  much  more  influenced  by 
age,  apart  from  intelligence,  than  most  other  tests  of  the 
scale.  Notwithstanding  this  fault,  it  seems  desirable  to 
keep  the  test,  at  least  as  an  alternative,  because  it  forms 
one  of  a  group  which  may  be  designated  as  tests  of  time 
orientation.  The  others  of  this  group  are:  "Distinguishing 
forenoon  and  afternoon "  (VI),  "  Giving  the  date "  and 
"Naming  the  months  "  (IX).  It  would  be  well  if  we  had 
even  more  of  this  type,  for  interest  in  the  passing  of  time 
and  in  the  names  of  time  divisions  is  closely  correlated 
with  intelligence.  One  reason  for  the  inferiority  of  the  dull 
and  feeble-minded  in  tests  of  this  type  is  that  their  mental 
associations  are  weaker  and  less  numerous.  The  greater 
poverty  of  their  associations  brings  it  about  that  their 
remembered  experiences  are  less  definitely  located  in 
time  with  reference  to  other  events. 

The  test  was  located  in  year  IX  of  the  1908  scale,  but 
was  omitted  from  the  1911  revision.  Kuhlmann  also  omits 
it,  while  Goddard  places  it  in  year  VIII.  The  statistics 


TEST  NO.  VH,  ALTERNATIVE  2  207 

from  every  American  investigation,  however,  warrant  its 
location  in  year  VII.  It  may  be  located  in  year  VIII  only 
on  the  condition  that  the  child  be  required  to  name  the 
days  backwards,  and  that  within  a  rather  low  time  limit. 


Vn,  Alternative  test  2 :  repeating  three  digits  reversed 

Procedure.  The  digits  used  are:  2-8-3;  4-2-7;  5-9-6. 
The  test  should  be  given  after,  but  not  immediately  after, 
the  tests  of  repeating  digits  forwards. 

Say  to  the  child:  "Listen  carefully.  I  am  going  to  read 
some  numbers  again,  but  this  time  I  want  you  to  say  them 
backwards.  For  example,  if  I  should  say  1-2-3,  you  would 
say  3-2-1.  Do  you  understand  ?  "  When  it  is  evident  that 
the  child  has  grasped  the  instructions,  say:  "  Ready  now; 
listen  carefully,  and  be  sure  to  say  the  numbers  backwards." 
Then  read  the  series  at  the  same  rate  and  in  the  same 
manner  as  in  the  other  digits  tests.  It  is  not  permissible  to 
re-read  any  of  the  series. 

If  the  first  series  is  repeated  forwards  instead  of  back- 
wards, the  instructions  must  be  repeated.  Before  each 
series  exhort  the  child  to  listen  carefully  and  to  be  sure  to 
repeat  the  numbers  backwards. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  one  series  out  of  three  is 
repeated  backwards  without  error. 

Remarks.  The  test  of  repeating  digits  backwards  was 
suggested  by  Bobertag  in  1911,  but  appears  not  to  have 
been  used  or  standardized  previous  to  the  Stanford  inves- 
tigation. 

It  is  very  much  harder  to  repeat  a  series  of  digits  back- 
wards than  in  the  direct  order.  Five  digits  can  be  given 
in  the  direct  order  at  year  II,  and  six  at  year  X.  Revers- 
ing the  order  places  three  digits  in  year  VII,  four  in  year 
X,  five  in  year  XII,  and  six  in  "  average  adult."  Even 


208      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

intelligent  adults  sometimes  have  difficulty  in  repeating 
six  digits  backwards,  once  in  three  trials. 

As  a  test  of  intelligence  this  test  is  better  than  that  of 
repeating  digits  in  the  direct  order.  It  is  less  mechanical 
and  makes  a  much  heavier  demand  on  attention.  The  digits 
must  be  so  firmly  fixated  in  memory  that  they  can  be  held 
there  long  enough  to  be  told  off,  one  by  one,  backwards. 

Feeble-minded  children  find  this  test  especially  difficult, 
perhaps  mainly  because  of  its  element  of  novelty.  School 
children  are  often  asked  to  write  numbers  dictated  by  the 
teacher,  and  even  the  very  dull  acquire  a  certain  proficiency 
in  doing  so;  but  the  test  of  repeating  digits  backwards  re- 
quires a  certain  facility  in  adjusting  to  a  new  task,  exactly 
the  sort  of  thing  in  which  the  feeble-minded  are  so  markedly 
deficient. 

As  a  rule  the  response  consumes  much  more  time  than 
in  the  other  digits  test.  This  is  particularly  true  when  the 
series  to  be  repeated  backwards  contains  four  or  more 
digits.  The  chance  of  success  is  greatly  increased  if  the  sub- 
ject first  thinks  the  series  through  two  or  three  times  in 
the  direct  order  before  attempting  the  reverse  order.  The 
subject  who  responds  immediately  is  likely  to  begin  cor- 
rectly, but  to  give  the  first  part  of  the  original  series  in  the 
direct  order.  For  example,  6-5-2-8  is  given  8-2-6-5. 

Sometimes  the  child  gives  one  or  two  numbers  and  then 
stops,  having  completely  lost  the  rest  of  the  series  in  the 
stress  of  adjusting  to  the  novel  and  relatively  difficult 
task  of  beginning  with  the  final  digit.  In  such  cases  the 
feeble-minded  are  prone  to  fill  in  with  any  numbers  they 
may  happen  to  think  of.  A  good  method  for  the  subject 
is  to  break  the  series  up  into  groups  and  to  give  each 
group  separately.  Thus,  6-5-2-8  is  given  8-2  (pause)  5-6. 
As  a  rtile  only  the  more  intelligent  subjects  adopt  this 
method.  One  12-year-old  girl  attending  high  school  was 


TEST  NO.  VH,   ALTERNATIVE  2  209 

able  to  repeat  eight  digits  backwards  by  the  aid  of  this 
device. 

It  would  be  well  worth  while  to  investigate  the  relation 
of  this  test  to  imagery  type.  Such  a  study  would  have  to 
make  use  of  adult  subjects  trained  in  introspection.  It 
would  seem  that  success  might  be  favored  by  the  ability 
to  translate  the  auditory  impression  into  visual  imagery, 
so  that  the  remembered  numbers  could  be  read  off  as  from 
a  book;  but  this  may  or  may  not  be  the  case.  At  any  rate, 
success  seems  to  depend  largely  upon  the  ability  to  ma- 
nipulate mental  imagery. 

The  degree  of  certainty  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  re- 
sponse is  usually  much  less  than  in  repeating  digits  forwards. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  VIII 

1.  The  ball-and-field  test  (Score  2,  inferior  plan) 

Procedure.  Draw  a  circle  about  two  and  one  half  inches 
in  diameter,  leaving  a  small  gap  in  the  side  next  the  child. 
Say:  "Let  us  suppose  that  your  baseball  has  been  lost  in 
this  round  field.  You  have  no  idea  what  part  of  the  field  it 
is  in.  You  don't  know  what  direction  it  came  from,  how 
it  got  there,  or  with  what  force  it  came.  All  you  know  is 
that  the  ball  is  lost  somewhere  in  the  field.  Now,  take  this 
pencil  and  mark  out  a  path  to  show  me  how  you  would  hunt 
for  the  ball  so  as  to  be  sure  not  to  miss  it.  Begin  at  the  gate 
and  show  me  what  path  you  would  take."  1 

Give  the  instructions  always  as  worded  above.  Avoid 
using  an  expression  like,  "  Show  me  how  you  would  walk 
around  in  the  field  ";  the  word  around  might  suggest  a  cir- 
cular path. 

Sometimes  the  child  merely  points  or  tells  how  he  would 
go.  It  is  then  necessary  to  say:  "No;  you  must  mark  out 
your  path  with  the  pencil  so  I  can  see  it  plainly."  Other 
children  trace  a  path  only  a  little  way  and  stop,  saying: 
"Here  it  is."  We  then  say:  "But  suppose  you  have  not 
found  it  yet.  Which  direction  would  you  go  next  ?  "  In  this 
way  the  child  must  be  kept  tracing  a  path  until  it  is  evident 
whether  any  plan  governs  his  procedure. 

Scoring.  The  performances  secured  with  this  test  are 

1  The  Stanford  record  booklet  contains  the  circle  ready  for  use. 


TEST  NO.  Vm,  1  211 

conveniently  classified  into  four  groups,  representing  pro- 
gressively higher  types.  The  first  two  types  represent  fail- 
ures; the  third  is  satisfactory  at  year  VIII,  the  fourth  at 
year  XII.  They  may  be  described  as  follows:  — 

Type  a  (failure).  The  child  fails  to  comprehend  the  instructions 
and  either  does  nothing  at  all  or  else,  perhaps,  takes  the  pencil  and 
makes  a  few  random  strokes  which  could  not  be  said  to  constitute 
a  search. 

Type  b  (also  failure).  The  child  comprehends  the  instructions 
and  carries  out  a  search,  but  without  any  definite  plan.  Absence 
of  plan  is  evidenced  by  the  crossing  and  re-crossing  of  paths,  or 
by  "breaks."  A  break  means  that  the  pencil  is  lifted  up  and  set 
down  in  another  part  of  the  field.  Sometimes  only  two  or  three 
fragments  of  paths  are  drawn,  but  more  usually  the  field  is  pretty 
well  filled  up  with  random  meanderings  which  cross  each  other 
again  and  again.  Other  illustrations  of  type  b  are:  A  single  straight 
or  curved  line  going  direct  to  the  ball,  short  haphazard  dashes  or 
curves,  bare  suggestion  of  a  fan  or  spiral. 

Type  c  (satisfactory  at  year  VIII).  A  successful  performance  at 
year  VIII  is  characterized  by  the  presence  of  a  plan,  but  one  ill- 
adapted  to  the  purpose.  That  some  forethought  is  exercised  is 
evidenced,  (1)  by  fewer  crossings,  (2)  by  a  tendency  either  to  make 
the  lines  more  or  less  parallel  or  else  to  give  them  some  kind  of 
symmetry,  and  (3)  by  fewer  breaks.  The  possibilities  of  type  c  are 
almost  unlimited,  and  one  is  continually  meeting  new  forms.  We 
have  distinguished  more  than  twenty  of  these,  the  most  common  of 
which  may  be  described  as  follows:  — 

1.  Very  rough  or  zigzag  circles  or  similarly  imperfect  spirals. 

2.  Segments  of  curves  joined  in  a  more  or  less  symmetrical 
fashion. 

3.  Lines  going  back  and  forth  across  the  field,  joined  at  the 
ends  and  not  intended  to  be  parallel. 

4.  The  "wheel  plan,"  showing  lines  radiating  from  near  the 
center  of  the  field  toward  the  circumference. 

5.  The  "fan  plan,"  showing  a  number  of  lines  radiating  (usu- 
ally) from  the  gate  and  spreading  out  over  the  field. 

6.  "Fan  ellipses"  or  "fan  spirals"  radiating  from  the  gate  like 
the  lines  just  described. 


212      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

7.  The  "leaf  plan,"  "rib  plan,"  or  "tree  plan,"  with  lines 
branching  off  from  a  trunk  line  like  ribs,  veins  of  a  leaf,  or 
branches  of  a  tree. 

8.  Parallel  lines  which  cross  at  right  angles  and  mark  off  the 
field  like  a  checkerboard. 

9.  Paths  making  one  or  more  fairly  symmetrical  geometrical 
figures,  like  a  square,  a  diamond,  a  star,  a  hexagon,  etc. 

10.  A  combination  of  two  or  more  of  the  above  plans. 

Type  d  (satisfactory  at  year  XII).  Performances  of  this  type 
meet  perfectly,  or  almost  perfectly,  the  logical  requirements  of 
the  problem.  The  paths  are  almost  or  quite  parallel,  and  there 
are  no  intersections  or  breaks.  The  possibilities  of  type  d  are  fewer 
and  embrace  chiefly  the  following:  — 

1.  A  spiral,  perfect  or  almost  perfect,  and  beginning  either  at 
the  gate  or  at  the  center  of  the  field. 

2.  Concentric  circles. 

3.  Transverse  lines,  parallel  or  almost  so,  and  joined  at  the  ends. 

Up  to  about  4  years  most  children  failed  entirely  to  com- 
prehend the  task.  By  the  age  of  6  years  the  task  is  usually 
understood,  but  the  search  is  conducted  without  plan.  Type 
c  is  not  attained  by  two  thirds  before  the  mental  level  of 
8  years,  and  score  3  ordinarily  not  until  11  or  12  years. 

Grading  presents  some  difficulties  because  of  occasional 
border-line  performances  which  have  a  value  almost  mid- 
way between  types  b  and  c  or  between  c  and  d.  Frequent 
reference  to  the  scoring  card  will  enable  the  examiner, 
after  a  little  experience,  to  score  nearly  all  the  doubtful 
performances  satisfactorily. 

Remarks.  The  ball-and-field  problem  may  be  called  a 
test  of  practical  judgment.  Unlike  a  majority  of  the  other 
tests,  it  gives  the  subject  a  chance  to  show  how  well  he 
can  meet  the  demands  of  a  real,  rather  than  an  imagined, 
situation.  Tests  like  this,  involving  practical  adjustments, 
are  valuable  in  rounding  out  the  scale,  which,  as  left  by 
Binet,  placed  rather  excessive  emphasis  on  abstract  rea- 


TEST  NO.   Vm,   2  213 

soning  and  the  comprehension  of  language.    The  test  re- 
quires little  time  and  always  arouses  the  child's  interest. 

Our  analysis  of  the  responses  of  nearly  1500  subjects 
shows  that  improvement  with  increasing  mental  age  is 
steady  and  fairly  rapid.  Occasionally,  however,  one  meets 
a  high-grade  performance  with  children  of  6  or  7  years,  and 
a  low-grade  performance  with  adults  of  average  intelli- 
gence. Like  all  the  other  tests  of  the  scale,  it  is  unreliable 
when  used  alone. 


,  2.  Counting  backwards  from  20  to  1 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  child:  "You  can  count  backwards, 
can  you  not  ?  I  want  you  to  count  backwards  for  me  from 
20  to  1.  Go  ahead."  In  the  great  majority  of  cases  this  is 
sufficient;  the  child  comprehends  the  task  and  begins. 
If  he  does  not  comprehend,  and  is  silent,  or  starts  in, 
perhaps,  to  count  forwards  from  1  or  20,  say:  "No;  I 
want  you  to  count  backwards  from  20  to  1,  like  this:  20-19— 
18,  and  clear  on  down  to  1.  Now,  go  ahead." 

Insist  upon  the  child  trying  it  even  though  he  asserts 
he  cannot  do  it.  In  many  such  cases  an  effort  is  crowned 
with  success.  Say  nothing  about  hurrying,  as  this  confuses 
some  subjects.  Prompting  is  not  permissible. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  child  counts  from  20 
to  1  in  not  over  forty  seconds  and  with  not  more  than  a  single 
error  (one  omission  or  one  transposition).  Errors  which 
the  child  spontaneously  corrects  are  not  counted  as  errors. 

Remarks.  The  statistics  on  this  test  agree  remarkably 
well.  It  is  plainly  too  easy  for  year  IX,  and  no  one  has 
found  it  easy  enough  for  year  VII.  The  main  lack  of  uni- 
formity has  been  in  the  adherence  to  a  time  limit.  Binet 
required  that  the  task  be  completed  in  twenty  seconds,  and 
Goddard  and  most  others  adhere  rather  strictly  to  this  rule. 


214      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Kuhlmann,  however,  allows  thirty  seconds  if  there  is  no 
error  and  twenty  seconds  if  one  error  is  committed.  We 
agree  with  Bobertag  that  owing  to  the  nature  of  this  test 
we  should  not  be  pedantic  about  the  time.  While  a  major- 
ity of  children  who  are  able  to  count  backwards  do  the  task 
in  twenty  seconds,  there  are  some  intelligent  but  deliberate 
subjects  who  require  as  much  as  thirty -five  or  forty  seconds. 
If  the  counting  is  done  with  assurance  and  without  stum- 
bling, there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  allow  even  forty 
seconds.  Beyond  this,  however,  our  generosity  should  not 
go,  because  of  the  chance  it  would  give  for  the  use  of  special 
devices  such  as  counting  forwards  each  time  to  the  next 
number  wanted. 

It  may  be  said  that  counting  backwards  is  a  test  of  school- 
ing, and  to  a  certain  extent  this  is  true.  It  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  special  training  would  enable  the  child  to 
pass  the  test  a  little  earlier  than  he  would  otherwise  be 
able  to  do,  though  it  is  doubtful  whether  many  children 
below  7  years  of  age  have  had  enough  of  such  training  to 
influence  the  performance  very  materially.  On  the  other 
hand,  when  the  child  has  reached  an  intelligence  level  of 
8  or  at  most  9  years,  he  is  ordinarily  able  to  count  from 
20  to  1  whether  he  has  ever  tried  it  before  or  not. 

What  psychological  factors  are  involved  in  this  test? 
It  presupposes,  in  the  first  place,  the  ability  to  count  from 
1  to  20.  But  this  alone  does  not  guarantee  success  in 
counting  backwards.  Something  more  is  required  than  a 
mere  rote  memory  for  the  number  names  in  their  order 
from  1  up  to  20.  The  quantitative  relationships  of  the 
numbers  must  also  be  apprehended  if  the  task  is  to  be  per- 
formed smoothly  without  a  great  deal  of  special  training. 
In  addition  to  being  reasonably  secure  in  his  knowledge  of 
the  number  relationships  involved,  the  child  must  be  able 
to  give  sustained  attention  until  the  task  is  completed. 


TEST  NO.   Vm,  3  215 

His  mental  processes  must  be  dominated  by  the  guiding 
idea,  "  count  backwards."  Associations  which  do  not  har- 
monize with  this  aim,  or  which  fail  to  further  it,  must  be 
inhibited.  Even  momentary  relaxation  of  attention  means 
a  loss  of  directive  force  in  the  guiding  idea  and  the  domi- 
nance of  better  known  associations  which  may  be  suggested 
by  the  task,  but  are  out  of  harmony  with  it.  Thus,  if  a  child 
momentarily  loses  sight  of  the  end  after  counting  back- 
wards successfully  from  20  to  14,  he  is  likely  to  be  over- 
powered by  the  law  of  habit  and  begin  counting  forwards, 
14-15-16-17,  etc.  We  may  regard  the  test,  therefore,  as  a 
test  of  attention,  or  prolonged  thought  control.  The  ability 
to  exercise  unbroken  vigilance  for  a  period  of  twenty  or 
thirty  seconds  is  rarely  found  below  the  level  of  7-  or  8- 
year  intelligence. 

Vm,  3.  Comprehension,  third  degree 

The  questions  for  this  year  are:  — 

(a)  "  What  's  the  thing  for  you  to  do  when  you  have  broken  some- 
thing which  belongs  to  some  one  else  ?  " 

(b)  "  What  's  the  thing  for  you  to  do  when  you  notice  on  your  way 
to  school  that  you  are  in  danger  of  being  tardy  ?  " 

(c)  "  What  's  the  thing  for  you  to  do  if  a  playmate  hits  you  without 
meaning  to  do  it?" 

The  procedure  is  the  same  as  in  previous  comprehension 
questions.1  Each  question  may  be  repeated  once  or  twice, 
but  its  form  must  not  be  changed.  No  explanations  are 
permissible. 

Scoring :  — 

Question  a  (If  you  have  broken  something) 

Satisfactory  responses  are  those  suggesting  either  restitution  or 
apology,  or  both.  Confession  is  not  satisfactory  unless  accom- 

1  Sec  IV,  5,  and  VI,  4. 


216      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

panied  by  apology.  The  following  are  satisfactory:  "Buy  a  new 
one."  "Pay  for  it."  "Give  them  something  instead  of  it."  "Have 
my  father  mend  it."  "Apologize."  "Tell  them  I'm  sorry,  that  I 
did  not  mean  to  break  it,"  etc.  Of  92  correct  answers,  76  suggested 
restitution,  while  16  suggested  apology,  or  apology  and  restitution. 
Unsatisfactory.  "Tell  them  I  did  it."  "Go  tell  my  mother." 
"Feel  sorry."  "Be  ashamed."  "Pick  it  up,"  etc.  Mere  confession 
accounts  for  over  20  per  cent  of  all  failures. 

Question  b  (In  danger  of  being  tardy) 

Satisfactory.  The  expected  response  is,  "Hurry,"  "Walk  faster," 
or  something  to  that  effect.  One  bright  city  boy  said  he  would  take 
a  car.  Of  the  answers  not  obviously  incorrect,  nearly  95  per  cent 
suggest  hurrying.  The  rule  ordinarily  recommended  is  to  grade  all 
other  responses  minus.  But  this  rule  is  too  sweeping  to  be  followed 
blindly.  One  who  would  use  intelligence  tests  must  learn  to  dis- 
criminate. "I  would  go  back  home  and  not  go  to  school  that  day" 
is  a  good  answer  in  those  cases  (fortunately  rare)  in  which  children 
are  forbidden  by  the  teacher  to  enter  the  schoolroom  if  tardy. 
"Go  back  home  and  get  mother  to  write  an  excuse"  would  be 
good  policy  if  by  so  doing  the  child  might  escape  the  danger  of 
incurring  an  extreme  penalty.  When  teachers  inflict  absurd  pen- 
alties for  unexcused  tardiness,  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  for  children 
to  incur  no  risks!  When  such  a  response  is  given,  it  is  well  to  in- 
quire into  the  school's  method  of  dealing  with  tardiness  and  to 
score  the  response  accordingly. 

Unsatisfactory.  "Go  to  the  principal."  "Tell  the  teacher  I 
could  n't  help  it."  "Have  to  get  an  excuse."  "Go  to  school  any- 
way." "Get  punished."  "Not  do  it  again."  "Not  play  hooky." 
"Start  earlier  next  time,"  etc. 

Lack  of  success  results  oftenest  from  failure  to  get  the  exact 
shade  of  meaning  conveyed  by  the  question.  It  is  implied,  of 
course,  that  something  is  to  be  done  at  once  to  avoid  tardiness; 
but  the  subject  of  dull  comprehension  may  suggest  a  suitable 
thing  to  do  in  case  tardiness  has  been  incurred.  Hence  the  re- 
sponse, "I  would  go  to  the  principal  and  explain."  Answers  of 
this  type  are  always  unsatisfactory. 

Question  c  (Playmate  hits  you) 

Satisfactory  responses  are  only  those  which  suggest  either  excus- 
ing or  overlooking  the  act.  These  ideas  are  variously  expressed  as 


TEST  NO.   VIZI,  4  217 

follows:  "I  would  excuse  him"  (about  half  of  all  the  correct  an- 
swers). "I  would  say  'yes'  if  he  asked  my  pardon."  "I  would  say 
it  was  all  right."  "I  would  take  it  for  a  joke."  "I  would  just  be 
nice  to  him."  "I  would  go  right  on  playing."  "I  would  take  it 
kind-hearted."  "I  would  not  fight  or  run  and  tell  on  him."  "I 
would  not  blame  him  for  it."  "Ask  him  to  be  more  careful,"  etc. 

Unsatisfactory  responses  are  all  those  not  of  the  above  two  types; 
as:  "I  would  hit  them  back."  "I  would  not  hit  them  back,  but  I 
would  get  even  some  other  way."  "Tell  them  not  to  do  it  again." 
"Tell  them  to  'cut  it  out.'"  "Tell  him  it's  a  wrong  thing  to  do." 
"Make  him  excuse  himself."  "Make  him  say  he's  sorry."  "Would 
not  play  with  him."  "Tell  my  mamma."  "I  would  ask  him  why 
he  did  it."  "He  'd  say  'excuse  me'  and  I  'd  say  'thank  you.'" 
"He  should  excuse  me."  "He  is  supposed  to  say  'excuse  me.'" 

Remarks.  All  three  comprehension  questions  of  this  year 
were  used  by  Binet,  Goddard,  Huey,  and  others  in  year  X; 
two  of  them  in  the  "  easy  series  "  and  one  in  the  "  hard 
series."  The  Stanford  data  show  that  they  belong  at  the 
8-year  level  on  the  standard  of  scoring  above  set  forth. 
The  three  differ  little  among  themselves  in  difficulty, 
but  all  of  them  are  decidedly  easier  than  the  other  five 
used  by  Binet.  It  would  be  absurd  to  go  on  using  the  com- 
prehension questions  as  Binet  bunched  them,  eight  together, 
ranging  in  difficulty  from  one  which  is  easy  enough  for  6- 
year  intelligence  ("  What 's  the  thing  to  do  if  you  miss  your 
train?  ")  to  one  which  is  hard  for  the  12-year  level  ("  Why 
is  a  bad  act  done  when  one  is  angry  more  excusable  than 
the  same  act  done  when  one  is  not  angry?  "). 


Vin,  4.  Giving  similarities ;  two  things 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  child:  "/  am  going  to  name  two 
things  which  are  alike  in  some  way,  and  I  want  you  to  tell  me 
how  they  are  alike.  Wood  and  coal:  in  what  way  are  they 
alike  ?  "  Proceed  in  the  same  manner  with:  — 


218      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

An  apple  and  a  peach. 

Iron  and  silver. 

A  ship  and  an  automobile. 

After  the  first  pair  the  formula  may  be  abbreviated  to 
"  In  what  way  are  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  alike  ?  "  It  is  often 
necessary  to  insist  a  little  if  the  child  is  silent  or  says  he 
does  not  know,  but  in  doing  this  we  must  avoid  supplemen- 
tary questions  and  suggestions.  In  giving  the  first  pair, 
for  example,  it  would  not  be  permissible  to  ask  such  addi- 
tional questions  as,  "  What  do  you  use  wood  for  ?  What  do 
you  use  coal  for  ?  And  now,  how  are  wood  and  coal  alike  ?  " 
This  is  really  putting  the  answer  in  the  child's  mouth.  It 
is  only  permissible  to  repeat  the  original  question  in  a  per- 
suasive tone  of  voice,  and  perhaps  to  add:  "7  'TO  sure  you 
can  tell  me  how  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  are  alike"  or  something  to 
that  effect. 

A  very  common  mistake  which  the  child  makes  is  to  give 
differences  instead  of  similarities.  This  tendency  is  particu- 
larly strong  if  test  5,  year  VII  (giving  differences),  has 
been  given  earlier  in  the  sitting,  but  it  happens  often  enough 
in  other  cases  also  to  suggest  that  finding  differences  is,  to 
a  much  greater  extent  than  finding  similarities,  the  child's 
preferred  method  of  making  a  comparison.  When  a  dif- 
ference is  given,  instead  of  a  similarity,  we  say:  "No, 
I  want  you  to  tell  me  how  they  are  alike.  In  what  way  are 
.  .  .  and  .  .  .  alike  ?  "  Unless  the  child  is  of  rather  low 
intelligence  level  this  is  sufficient,  but  the  mentally  retarded 
sometimes  continue  to  give  differences  persistently  in 
spite  of  repeated  admonitions,  or  if  they  cease  to  do  so  for 
one  or  two  comparisons,  they  are  likely  to  repeat  the  mis- 
take in  the  latter  part  of  the  test. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  a  likeness  is  given  in  two 
out  of  four  comparisons.  We  accept  as  satisfactory  any  real 
likeness,  whether  fundamental  or  superficial,  though,  of 


TEST  NO.  Vm,  4  219 

course,  the  more  essential  the  resemblance,  the  better  indica- 
tion it  is  of  intelligence.  The  following  are  samples  of  satis- 
factory and  unsatisfactory  answers :  —  1 

(a)  Wood  and  coal 

Satisfactory.  "Both  burn."  "Both  keep  you  warm."  "Both 
are  used  for  fuel."  "Both  are  vegetable  matter."  "Both  come 
from  the  ground."  "Can  use  them  both  for  running  engines." 
"Both  hard."  "Both  heavy."  "Both  cost  money." 

Of  80  correct  answers,  64,  or  80  per  cent,  referred  in  one  way  or 
another  to  combustibility. 

Unsatisfactory.  Most  frequent  is  the  persistent  giving  of  a  dif- 
ference instead  of  a  similarity.  This  accounts  for  a  little  over  half 
of  all  the  failures.  About  half  of  the  remainder  are  cases  of  in- 
ability to  give  any  response.  Incorrect  statements  with  regard  to 
color  are  rather  common.  Sample  failures  of  this  type  are:  "Both 
are  black,"  or  "Both  the  same  color."  Other  failures  are:  "Both 
are  dirty  on  the  outside;"  "You  can't  break  them;"  "Coal  burns 
better;"  "Wood  is  lighter  than  coal,"  etc. 

(b)  An  apple  and  a  peach 

Satisfactory.  "Both  are  round."  "Both  the  same  shape." 
"They  are  about  the  same  color."  "Both  nearly  always  have 
some  red  on  them."  "Both  good  to  eat."  " Can  make  pies  of  both 
of  them."  "Both  can  be  cooked."  "Both  mellow  when  they  are 
ripe."  "Both  have  a  stem"  (or  seeds,  skin,  etc.).  "Both  come 
from  trees."  "Can  be  dried  in  the  same  way."  "Both  are  fruits." 
"Both  green  (in  color)  when  they  are  not  ripe." 

Of  82  correct  answers,  25  per  cent  mention  color;  25  per  cent, 
form;  22  per  cent,  edibility;  20  per  cent,  having  stem,  seed,  or  skin; 
and  5  per  cent,  that  both  grow  on  trees. 

Unsatisfactory.  "Both  taste  the  same."  "Both  have  a  lot  of 
seeds."  "Both  have  a  fuzzy  skin."  "An  apple  is  bigger  than  a 
peach."  "One  is  red  and  one  is  white,"  etc. 

Again,  over  50  per  cent  of  the  failures  are  due  to  giving  differ- 
ences, and  about  18  per  cent  to  silence. 

1  For  aid  in  classifying  the  responses  in  this  and  certain  other  tests  the 
writer  is  indebted  to  Miss  Grace  Lyman. 


220      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

(c)  Iron  and  silver 

Satisfactory.  "Both  are  metals"  (or  mineral).  "Both  come  out 
of  the  ground."  "Both  cost  money."  "Both  are  heavy."  "Both 
are  hard."  "Both  can  be  melted."  "Both  can  be  bent."  "Both 
used  for  utensils."  "You  manufacture  things  out  of  both  of  them." 
"Both  can  be  polished." 

These  are  named  most  frequently  in  the  following  order: 
(1)  hardness,  (2)  origin  from  the  ground,  (3)  heaviness,  (4)  use  hi 
making  things. 

Unsatisfactory.  "Both  thin"  (or  thick).  "Sometimes  they  are 
the  same  shape."  "Both  the  same  color."  "A  little  silver  and  lots 
of  iron  weigh  the  same."  "Both  made  by  the  same  company." 
"They  rust  the  same."  "You  can't  eat  them"  (!)  * 

Of  60  failures,  32  were  due  to  giving  differences  and  14  to  silence 
or  unwillingness  to  hazard  a  reply. 

(d)  A  ship  and  an  automobile 

Satisfactory.  "Both  means  of  travel."  "Both  go."  "You  ride 
in  them."  "Both  take  you  fast."  "They  both  use  fuel."  "Both 
run  by  machinery."  "Both  have  a  steering  gear."  " Both  have  en- 
gines in  them."  "Both  have  wood  in  them."  "Both  can  be 
wrecked."  "Both  break  if  they  hit  a  rock." 

About  45  per  cent  of  the  answers  are  in  terms  of  running  or 
travel,  37  per  cent  in  terms  of  machinery  or  structure,  the  rest  scat- 
tered. 

Unsatisfactory.  "Both  black"  (or  some  other  color).  "Both 
very  big."  "They  are  made  alike."  "Both  run  on  wheels."  "Ship 
is  for  the  water  and  automobile  for  the  land."  "Ship  goes  on  water 
and  an  automobile  sometimes  goes  in  water."  "An  auto  can  go 
faster."  "Ship  is  run  by  coal  and  automobile  by  gasoline." 

Of  51  failures,  32  were  due  to  giving  differences  and  14  to  failure 
to  reply. 

Remarks.  The  test  of  finding  similarities  was  suggested 
by  Bobertag.  Our  results  show  that  it  is  fully  as  satis- 
factory as  the  test  of  giving  differences.  The  test  reveals  in 

1  One  is  here  reminded  of  the  puzzling  conundrum,  "Why  is  a  brick 
like  an  elephant?"  The  answer  being,  "Because  neither  can  climb  a  tree!" 
A  response  of  this  type  states  a  fact,  but  because  of  its  bizarre  nature 
should  hardly  he  counted  satisfactory. 


TEST  NO.  Vm,  5  221 

a  most  interesting  way  one  of  the  fundamental  weaknesses 
of  the  feeble  mind.  Young  normal  children,  say  of  7  or  8 
years,  often  fail  to  pass,  but  it  is  the  feeble-minded  who 
give  the  greatest  number  of  absurd  answers  and  who  also 
find  greatest  difficulty  in  resisting  the  tendency  to  give 
differences.1 


Vm,  5.  Giving  definitions  superior  to  use 

Procedure.  The  words  for  this  year  are  balloon,  tiger, 
football,  and  soldier.  Ask  simply:  "What  is  a  balloon?" 
etc. 

If  it  appears  that  any  of  the  words  are  not  familiar  to 
the  child,  substitution  may  be  made  from  the  following: 
automobile,  ^attU-sln^  potato,  store. 

Make  no  comments  on  the  responses  until  all  the  words 
have  been  given.  In  case  of  silence  or  hesitation  in  answer- 
ing, the  question  may  be  repeated  with  a  little  encourage- 
ment; but  supplementary  questions  are  never  in  order. 
Ordinarily  there  is  no  difficulty  in  securing  a  response  to 
the  definition  test  of  this  year.  The  trouble  comes  in  scor- 
ing the  response. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  two  of  the  four  words  are 
defined  in  terms  superior  to  use.  "  Superior  to  use  "  in- 
cludes chiefly:  (a)  Definitions  which  describe  the  object 
or  tell  something  of  its  nature  (form,  size,  color,  appearance, 
etc.);  (6)  definitions  which  give  the  substance  or  the  ma- 
terials or  parts  composing  it;  and  (c)  those  which  tell  what 
class  the  object  belongs  to  or  what  relation  it  bears  to  other 
classes  of  objects. 

It  is  possible  to  distinguish  different  grades  of  definitions 
in  each  of  the  above  classes.  A  definition  by  description 
(type  a)  may  be  brief  and  partial,  mentioning  only  one  or 
1  For  further  discussion  of  the  processes  involved,  see  XII,  8. 


222      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

two  qualities  or  characteristics,  or  it  may  be  relatively 
rich  and  complete.  Likewise  with  definitions  of  type  b. 
Classificatory  definitions  (type  c)  are  of  particularly  un- 
even value,  the  lowest  order  being  those  which  subsume 
the  object  to  be  defined  under  a  remote  class  and  give  few 
if  any  characteristics  to  distinguish  it  from  other  members 
of  the  same  class;  as,  for  example,  "  A  football  is  a  thing 
you  can  have  fun  with,"  or,  "  A  soldier  is  a  person."  The 
best  classificatory  definitions  are  those  which  subsume  the 
object  under  the  next  higher  class  and  give  the  more  es- 
sential traits  (perhaps  a  number  of  them)  which  distinguish 
the  object  from  others  of  the  class  named;  as,  for  example, 
"  A  tiger  is  a  large  animal  like  a  cat;  it  lives  in  the  jungle  and 
eats  men  and  other  animals,"  or,  "A  soldier  is  a  man  who 
goes  to  war."  These  shades  of  distinction  give  interesting 
and  valuable  clues  to  the  maturity  and  richness  of  the  ap- 
perceptive  processes,  but  for  purposes  of  scoring  it  is  neces- 
sary merely  to  decide  whether  the  definition  is  given  in 
terms  superior  to  use. 

The  following  are  samples  of  satisfactory  definitions, 
those  for  each  word  being  arranged  roughly  in  the  order  of 
their  value  from  excellent  to  barely  passing :  — " 

(a)  Balloon 

Satisfactory.  "A  balloon  is  a  means  of  traveling  through  the  air." 
"It  is  a  kind  of  airship,  made  of  cloth  and  filled  with  air  so  it  can 
go  up."  "It  is  big  and  made  of  cloth.  It  has  gas  in  it  and  carries 
people  up  in  a  basket  that's  fastened  on  to  the  bottom."  "It  is  a 
thing  you  hold  by  a  string  and  it  goes  up."  "It  is  like  a  big  bag 
with  air  in  it."  "It  is  a  big  thing  that  goes  up." 

Unsatisfactory.  "To  go  up  in  the  air."  "What  you  go  up  in." 
"When  you  go  up."  "They  go  up  in  it."  "It's  full  of  gas."  "To 
carry  you  up."  "A  balloon  is  a  balloon,"  etc.  "It  is  big."  "They 
go  up,"  etc. 


TEST  NO.   Vm,   5  223 

(6)  Tiger 

Satisfactory.  "It  is  a  wild  animal  of  the  cat  family."  "It  is  an 
animal  that's  a  cousin  to  the  lion."  "It  is  an  animal  that  lives  in 
the  jungle."  "It  is  a  wild  animal."  "It  looks  like  a  big  cat."  "It 
lives  in  the  woods  and  eats  flesh."  "Something  that  eats  people." 

Unsatisfactory.  "To  eat  you  up."  "To  kill  people."  "To  travel 
in  the  circus."  "What  eats  people."  "It  is  a  tiger,"  etc.  "You 
run  from  it,"  etc. 

(c)  Football 

Satisfactory.  "It  is  a  leather  bag  filled  with  air  and  made  for 
kicking."  "It  is  a  ball  you  kick."  "It  is  a  thing  you  play  with." 
"It  is  made  of  leather  and  is  stuffed  with  air."  "It  is  a  thing  you 
kick."  "It  is  brown  and  filled  with  air."  "It  is  a  thing  shaped 
like  a  watermelon." 

Unsatisfactory:  "To  kick."  "To  play  with."  "What  they  play 
with."  "Boys  play  with  it."  "It's  filled  with  air."  "It  is  a  foot- 
ball." "It  is  a  basket  ball."  "It  is  round."  "You  kick  it." 

(d)  Soldier 

Satisfactory.  "A  man  who  goes  to  war."  "A  brave  man."  "A 
man  that  walks  up  and  down  and  carries  a  gun."  "It  is  a  man  who 
minds  his  captain  and  stands  still  and  walks  straight."  "It  is  a 
man  who  goes  to  war  and  shoots."  "  It  is  a  man  who  stands  straight 
and  marches." 

Unsatisfactory.  "To  shoot."  "To  go  to  war."  "It  is  a  soldier." 
"A  soldier  that  marches."  "He  fights."  "He  shoots."  "What 
fights,"  etc.  "When  you  march  and  shoot." 

Silence  accounts  for  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  fail- 
ures with  children  of  8,  9,  and  10  years. 

Remarks.  The  "  use  definitions  "  sometimes  given  at  this 
age  are  usually  of  slightly  better  quality  than  those  given 
in  year  V.  Younger  children  more  often  use  the  infinitive 
form,  "  to  play  with  "  (doll),  "  to  drive  "  (horse),  "  to  eat 
on  "  (table),  etc.  Use  definitions  of  this  year  more  often 
begin  with  "  they,"  or  "  what  ";  as,  "they  go  up  in  it  " 
(balloon),  "  they  kick  it  "  (football),  etc. 

Why,  it  may  be  asked,  is  the  use  definition  regarded  as 


224      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

inferior  to  the  descriptive  or  the  classificatory  definition? 
Is  not  the  use  to  which  an  object  may  be  put  the  most  es- 
sential thing  about  it,  for  the  child  at  least?  Is  it  not  more 
important  to  know  that  a  fork  is  to  eat  with  than  to  be 
able  to  name  the  material  it  is  made  of?  Is  not  the  use  pri- 
mary and  does  it  not  determine  most  of  the  physical  charac- 
teristics of  the  object? 

The  above  questions  may  sound  reasonable,  but  they  are 
based  on  poor  psychology.  We  must  rest  our  case  upon  the 
facts.  The  first  lesson  which  the  student  of  child  psychology 
must  learn  is  that  it  is  unsafe  to  set  up  criteria  of  intelli- 
gence, of  maturity,  or  of  any  other  mental  trait  on  the  basis 
of  theoretical  considerations.  Experiment  teaches  that  nor- 
mal children  of  5  or  6  years,  also  older  feeble-minded  persons 
of  the  5-year  intelligence  level,  define  objects  in  terms  of 
use;  also  that  normal  children  of  8  or  9  years  and  older 
feeble-minded  persons  of  this  mental  level  have  for  the 
most  part  developed  beyond  the  stage  of  use  definitions 
into  the  descriptive  or  classificatory  stage.  An  ounce  of 
fact  is  worth  a  ton  of  theory. 

The  test  has  usually  been  located  in  year  IX,  with  the 
requirement  of  three  successes  out  of  five  trials  and  with 
somewhat  more  rigid  scoring  of  the  individual  definitions. 
When  only  two  successes  are  required  in  four  trials,  and 
when  scored  leniently,  the  test  belongs  at  the  8-year  level. 

Vin,  6.  Vocabulary;  twenty  definitions,  3600  words 

Procedure.  Use  the  list  of  words  given  in  the  record 
booklet.  Say  to  the  child:  "  /  want  to  find  out  how  many 
words  you  know.  Listen;  and  when  I  say  a  word  you  tell 
me  what  it  means"  If  the  child  can  read,  give  him  a  printed 
copy  of  the  word  list  and  let  him  look  at  each  word  as  you 
pronounce  it. 


TEST  NO.  Vm,  6  225 

The  words  are  arranged  approximately  (though  not 
exactly)  in  the  order  of  their  difficulty,  and  it  is  best  to 
begin  with  the  easier  words  and  proceed  to  the  harder. 
With  children  under  9  or  10  years,  begin  with  the  first. 
Apparently  normal  children  of  10  years  may  safely  be  cred- 
ited with  the  first  ten  words  without  being  asked  to  define 
them.  Apparently  normal  children  of  12  may  begin  with 
word  16,  and  15-year-olds  with  word  21.  Except  with  sub- 
jects of  almost  adult  intelligence  there  is  no  need  to  give 
the  last  ten  or  fifteen  words,  as  these  are  almost  never  cor- 
rectly defined  by  school  children.  A  safe  rule  to  follow  is  to 
continue  until  eight  or  ten  successive  words  have  been  missed 
and  to  score  the  remainder  minus  without  giving  them. 

The  formula  is  as  follows:  "What  is  an  orange?" 
"  What  is  a  bonfire  ?  "  "  Roar;  what  does  roar  mean  ?  " 
"Gown;  what  is  a  gown?"  "What  does  tap  mean?" 
"  What  does  scorch  mean  ?  "  "  What  is  a  puddle  ?  "  etc. 

Some  children  at  first  show  a  little  hesitation  about  an- 
swering, thinking  that  a  strictly  formal  definition  is  ex- 
pected. In  such  cases  a  little  encouragement  is  necessary; 
as:  "  You  know  what  a  bonfire  is.  You  have  seen  a  bonfire. 
Now,  what  is  a  bonfire?  "  If  the  child  still  hesitates,  say: 
"  Just  tell  me  in  your  own  words;  say  it  any  way  you  please. 
AH  I  want  is  to  find  out  whether  you  Jcnmv  what  a  bonfire 
is."  Do  not  torture  the  child,  however,  by  undue  insist- 
ence. If  he  persists  in  his  refusal  to  define  a  word  which 
he  would  ordinarily  be  expected  to  know,  it  is  better  to 
pass  on  to  the  next  one  and  to  return  to  the  troublesome 
word  later.  Above  all,  avoid  helping  the  child  by  illustrat- 
ing the  use  of  a  word  in  a  sentence.  Adhere  strictly  to  the 
formula  given  above.  If  the  definition  as  given  does  not 
make  it  clear  whether  the  child  has  the  correct  idea,  say: 
"  Explain,"  or,  "  /  don't  understand;  explain  what  you 
mean." 


226      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Encourage  the  child  frequently  by  saying:  "  That 's 
fine.  You  are  doing  beautifully.  You  know  lots  of  words," 
etc.  Never  tell  the  child  his  definition  is  not  correct,  and 
never  ask  for  a  different  definition. 

Avoid  saying  anything  which  would  suggest  a  model 
form  of  definition,  as  the  type  of  definition  which  the  child 
spontaneously  chooses  throws  interesting  light  on  the  degree 
of  maturity  of  the  apperceptive  processes.  Record  all 
definitions  verbatim  if  possible,  or  at  least  those  which 
are  exceptionally  good,  poor,  or  doubtful. 

Scoring.  Credit  a  response  in  full  if  it  gives  one  correct 
meaning  for  the  word,  regardless  of  whether  that  meaning 
is  the  most  common  one,  and  regardless  of  whether  it  is 
the  original  or  a  derived  meaning.  Occasionally  half  credit 
may  be  given,  but  this  should  be  avoided  as  far  as  possible. 

To  find  the  entire  vocabulary,  multiply  the  number  of 
words  known  by  180.  (This  list  is  made  up  of  100  words 
selected  by  rule  from  a  dictionary  containing  18,000  words.) 
Thus,  the  child  who  defines  20  words  correctly  has  a  vocabu- 
lary of  20  X  180  =  3600  words;  50  correct  definitions  would 
mean  a  vocabulary  of  9000  words,  etc.  The  following  are 
the  standards  for  different  years,  as  determined  by  the 
vocabulary  reached  by  60  to  65  per  cent  of  the  subjects  of 
the  various  mental  levels:  — 

8  years 20  words  ....  vocabulary    3,600 

10  years 30  words  ....  vocabulary    5,400 

12  years 40  words  ....  vocabulary    7,200 

14  years 50  words  ....  vocabulary    9,000 

Average  adult 65  words  ....  vocabulary  11,700 

Superior  adult 75  words  ....  vocabulary  13,500 

Although  the  form  of  the  definition  is  significant,  it  is 
not  taken  into  consideration  in  scoring.  The  test  is  in- 
tended to  explore  the  range  of  ideas  rather  than  the  evolu- 
tion of  thought  forms.  When  it  is  evident  that  the  child 
has  one  fairly  correct  meaning  for  a  word,  he  is  given  full 


TEST  NO.  Vin,  6  227 

credit  for  it,  however  poorly  the  definition  may  have  been 
stated. 

While  there  is  naturally  some  difficulty  now  and  then  in 
deciding  whether  a  given  definition  is  correct,  this  hap- 
pens much  less  frequently  than  one  would  expect.  In  order 
to  get  a  definite  idea  of  the  extent  of  error  due  to  the  in- 
dividual differences  among  examiners,  we  have  had  the 
definitions  of  25  subjects  graded  independently  by  10  dif- 
ferent persons.  The  result  showed  an  average  difference 
below  3  in  the  number  of  definitions  scored  plus.  Since 
these  subjects  attempted  on  an  average  about  60  words, 
the  average  number  of  doubtful  definitions  per  subject  was 
below  5  per  cent  of  the  number  attempted. 

An  idea  of  the  degree  of  leniency  to  be  exercised  may  be 
had  from  the  following  examples  of  definitions,  which  are 
mostly  of  low  grade,  but  acceptable  unless  otherwise  indi- 
cated :  — 

1.  Orange.  "An  orange  is  to  eat."  "It  is  yellow  and  grows  on  a 

tree."   (Both  full  credit.) 
(g)  Bonfire.    "You  burn  it  outdoors."    "You  burn  some  leaves 

or  things."   "It's  a  big  fire."    (All  full  credit.) 
3.  Roar.  "A.  lion  roars."  "You  holler  loud."   (Full  credit.) 
^  Gown.   "To  sleep  in."   "It's  a  nightie."   "It's  a  nice  gown 

that  ladies  wear."    (All  full  credit.) 
7.  Puddle.   "You  splash  in  it."   "It's  just  a  puddle  of  water." 

(Both  full  credit.) 
9.  Straw.    "It  grows  in  the  field."    "It  means  wheat-straw." 

"The  horses  eat  it."    (All  full  credit.) 
MO.  Rule.   "The  teacher  makes  rules."    "It  means  you  can't  do 

something."   "You  make  marks  with  it,"  i.e.,  a  ruler,  often 

called  a  rule  by  school  children.    (All  full  credit.) 

11.  Afloat.  "To  float  on  the  water."  "A  ship  floats."  (Both  full 
credit.) 

12.  Eyelash.   If  the  child  says,  "It's  over  the  eye,"  tell  him  to 
point  to  it,  as  often  the  word  is  confused  with  eyebrow. 

*Q4\Copper,    "It's  a  penny."    "It  means  some  copper  wire." 
^  full  credit.) 


228      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

15.  Health.   "It  means  good  health  or  bad  health."   "It  means 

strong."    (Both  full  credit.) 
17.  Guitar.   "You  play  on  it."    (Full  credit.) 
IB,  Mellow.   If  the  child  says,  "It  means  a  mellow  apple,"  ask 

what  kind  of  apple  that  would  be.  For  full  credit  the  answer 

must  be  "soft,"  "mushy,"  etc. 
tf^  Pork.   If  the  answer  is  "meat,"  ask  what  animal  it  comes 

from.     Half  credit  if  wrong  animal  is  named. 
^  Plumbing.   "You  fix  pipes."    (Full  credit.) 
21.  Southern.  If  the  answer  is  "Southern  States,"  or  "Southern 

California,"  say:   "Yes;   but  what  does  'southern'  mean?" 

Do  not  credit  unless  explanation  is  forthcoming. 
26.  Noticeable.  "You  notice  a  thing."  (Full  credit.) 
-89.  Civil.  "Civil  War."  (Failure  unless  explained.)  "It  means 

to  be  nice."    (Full  credit.) 
30.  Treasury.   Give  half  credit  for  definitions  like  "Valuables," 

"Lots  of  money,"  etc.;  i.e.,  if  the  word  is  confused  with 

treasure. 

-32.  Ramble.   "To  go  about  fast."   (Half  credit.) 
38.  Nerve.   Half  credit  if  the  slang  use  is  defined,  "You've  got 

nerve,"  etc. 
CSJ).  Majesty.   "What  you  say  to  a  king."    (Full  credit.) 

45.  Sportive.    "To  like  sports."    (Half  credit.)    "Playful"  or 
"happy."    (Full  credit.) 

46.  Hysterics.  "You  laugh  and  cry  at  the  same  time."  "A  kind 
of  sickness."    "A  kind  of  fit."    (All  full  credit.) 

48.  Repose.   "You  pose  again."    (Failure.) 

52.  Coinage.  "A  place  where  they  make  money."   (Half  credit.) 
56.  Dilapidated.  "Something  that's  very  old."   (Half  credit.) 
58.  Conscientious.    "You're  careful  how  you  do  your  work." 

(Full  credit.) 

-  ~60.  Artless.  "No  art."   (Failure  unless  correctly  explained.) 
—  61.  Priceless.   "It  has  no  price."    (Failure.) 

66.  Promontory.   "Something  prominent."   (Failure  unless  child 

can  explain  what  it  refers  to.) 
68.  Milksop.   "You  sop  up  milk."   (Failure.) 
73.  Harpy.   "A  kind  of  bird."   (Full  credit.) 
80.  Exaltation.   "You  feel  good."   (Full  credit.) 
85.  Retroactive.   "Acting  backward."   (Full  credit.) 
**fefl2.  Theosophy.   "A  religion."   (Full  credit.) 


TEST  NO.   Vm,  6  229 

It  is  seen  from  the  above  examples  that  a  very  liberal 
standard  has  been  used.  Leniency  in  judging  definitions  is 
necessary  because  the  child's  power  of  expression  lags  far- 
ther behind  his  understanding  than  is  true  of  adults,  and 
also  because  for  the  young  subject  the  word  has  a  rela- 
tively less  unitary  existence. 

Remarks.  Our  vocabulary  test  was  derived  by  selecting 
the  last  word  of  every  sixth  column  in  a  dictionary  con- 
taining approximately  18,000  words,  presumably  the  18,- 
000  most  common  words  in  the  language.  The  test  is  based 
on  the  assumption  that  100  words  selected  according  to 
some  arbitrary  rule  will  be  a  large  enough  sampling  to 
afford  a  fairly  reliable  index  of  a  subject's  entire  vocabu- 
lary. Rather  extensive  experimentation  with  this  list  and 
others  chosen  in  a  similar  manner  has  proved  that  the 
assumption  is  justified.  Tests  of  the  same  75  individuals 
with  five  different  vocabulary  tests  of  this  type  showed 
that  the  average  difference  between  two  tests  of  the  same 
person  was  less  than  5  per  cent.  This  means  that  any  one 
of  the  five  tests  used  is  reliable  enough  for  all  practical 
purposes.  It  is  of  no  special  importance  that  a  given  child's 
vocabulary  is  8000  rather  than  7600;  the  significance 
lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  approximately  8000  and  not  4000, 
12,000,  or  some  other  widely  different  number. 

It  may  seem  to  the  reader  almost  incredible  that  so  small 
a  sampling  of  words  would  give  a  reliable  index  of  an 
individual's  vocabulary.  That  it  does  so  is  due  to  the  opera- 
tion of  the  ordinary  laws  of  chance.  It  is  analogous  to  pre- 
dicting the  results  of  an  election  when  only  a  small  propor- 
tion of  the  ballots  have  been  counted.  If  it  is  known  that  a 
ballot  box  contains  600  votes,  and  if  when  only  30  have 
been  counted  it  is  found  that  they  are  divided  between  two 
candidates  in  the  proportion  of  20  and  10,  it  is  safe  to  pre- 
dict that  a  complete  count  will  give  the  two  candidates 


230      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

approximately  400  and  200  respectively.1  In  1914  about 
1,000,000  votes  were  cast  for  governor  in  California,  and 
when  only  10,000  votes  had  been  counted,  or  a  hundredth 
of  all,  it  was  announced  and  conceded  that  Governor  John- 
son had  been  reflected  by  about  150,000  plurality.  The 
completed  count  gave  him  188,505  plurality.  The  error 
was  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the  total  vote. 

The  vocabulary  test  has  a  far  higher  value  than  any 
other  single  test  of  the  scale.  Used  with  children  of  English- 
speaking  parents  (with  children  whose  home  language  is 
not  English  it  is  of  course  unreliable),  it  probably  has  a 
higher  value  than  any  three  other  tests  in  the  scale.  Our 
statistics  show  that  in  a  large  majority  of  cases  the  vo- 
cabulary test  alone  will  give  us  an  intelligence  quotient 
within  10  per  cent  of  that  secured  by  the  entire  scale.  Out 
of  hundreds  of  English-speaking  children  we  have  not 
found  one  testing  significantly  above  age  who  had  a  signifi- 
cantly low  vocabulary;  and  correspondingly,  those  who 
test  much  below  age  never  have  a  high  vocabulary. 

Occasionally,  however,  a  subject  tests  somewhat  higher 
or  lower  in  vocabulary  than  the  mental  age  would  lead  us 
to  expect.  This  is  often  the  case  with  dull  children  in  cul- 
tured homes  and  with  very  intelligent  children  whose  home 
environment  has  not  stimulated  language  development. 
But  even  in  these  cases  we  are  not  seriously  misled,  for  the 
dull  child  of  fortunate  home  surroundings  shows  his  dullness 
in  the  quality  of  his  definitions  if  not  in  their  quantity; 
while  the  bright  child  of  illiterate  parents  shows  his  intelli- 
gence in  the  aptness  and  accuracy  of  his  definitions. 

We  have  not  worked  out  a  satisfactory  method  of  scor- 
ing the  quality  of  definitions  in  our  vocabulary  test,  but 
these  differences  will  be  readily  observed  by  the  trained 
examiner.  Definitions  in  terms  of  use  and  definitions  which 
1  Supposing  the  ballots  to  have  been  shuffled. 


TEST  NO.  Vm,   ALTERNATIVE  2  231 

are  slightly  inaccurate  or  hazy  are  quite  characteristic  of 
the  lower  mental  ages.  Children  of  the  lower  mental  age 
have  also  a  tendency  to  venture  wild  guesses  at  words 
they  do  not  know.  This  is  especially  characteristic  of  re- 
tarded subjects  and  is  another  example  of  their  weakness  of 
auto-criticism.  One  feeble-minded  boy  of  12  years,  with  a 
mental  age  of  8  years,  glibly  and  confidently  gave  defini- 
tions for  every  one  of  the  hundred  words.  About  70  of  the 
definitions  were  pure  nonsense. 

The  vocabulary  test  was  devised  and  partially  standard- 
ized by  Mr.  H.  G.  Childs  and  the  writer  in  1911.  Many 
experiments  since  then  have  proved  its  value  as  a  test  of 
intelligence. 

Vm,  Alternative  test  1  :  naming  six  coins 

Procedure  is  exactly  as  in  VI,  5  (naming  four  coins). 
The  dollar  should  be  shown  before  the  half-dollar. 

Scoring.  All  six  coins  must  be  correctly  named.  If  a  re- 
sponse is  changed  the  rule  is  to  count  the  second  answer 
and  ignore  the  first. 

Remarks.  Binet  used  nine  pieces  and  required  knowledge 
of  all  at  year  X  (1908),  but  at  year  IX  in  the  1911  revi- 
sion. Most  other  workers  have  used  the  same  method, 
with  the  test  located  in  either  year  IX  or  year  X. 


Alternative  test  2  :  writing  from  dictation 

Procedure.  Give  the  child  pen,  ink,  and  paper,  place 
him  in  a  comfortable  position  for  writing,  and  say:  "  7 
want  you  to  write  something  for  me  as  nicely  as  you  can. 
Write  these  words:  '  See  the  little  boy.'  Be  sure  to  write  it 
all:  '  See  the  little  boy:  " 

Do  not  dictate  the  words  separately,  but  give  the  sen- 


232      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

tence  as  a  whole.  Further  repetition  of  the  sentence  is  not 
permissible,  as  ability  to  remember  what  has  been  dictated 
is  a  part  of  the  test.  Copy,  of  course,  must  not  be  shown. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  sentence  is  written  legibly  enough 
to  be  easily  recognized,  and  if  no  word  has  been  omitted. 
Ordinary  mistakes  of  spelling  are  disregarded.  The  rule  is 
that  the  mistake  in  spelling  must  not  mutilate  the  word 
beyond  easy  recognition.  The  performance  may  be  graded 
by  the  use  of  Thorndike's  handwriting  scale.  The  hand- 
writing of  8-year-old  children  who  have  been  in  school  not 
less  than  one  year  or  more  than  two  usually  falls  between 
quality  7  and  quality  9  on  this  scale,  but  we  shall,  perhaps, 
not  be  too  liberal  if  we  consider  a  performance  satisfactory 
which  does  not  grade  below  quality  6,  provided  it  is  not 
seriously  mutilated  by  errors,  omissions,  etc.1 

Remarks.  This  test  found  a  place  in  year  VIII  of  Binet's 
1908  scale,  but  has  been  omitted  from  all  the  other  re- 
visions, including  Binet's  own.  Bobertag  did  not  even 
regard  the  test  as  worthy  of  a  trial.  The  universal  criticism 
has  been  that  it  is  a  test  of  schooling  rather  than  of  intelli- 
gence. That  the  performance  depends,  in  a  certain  sense, 
upon  special  instruction  is  self-evident.  Without  such 
instruction  no  child  of  8  years,  however  intelligent,  would 
be  able  to  pass  the  test.  Nature  does  not  give  us  a  conven- 
tionalized language,  either  written  or  spoken.  It  must  be 
acquired.  It  is  also  true  that  a  high-grade  feeble-minded 
child,  say  8  years  of  age  and  of  6-year  intelligence,  is  some- 
times (though  not  always)  able  to  pass  the  test  after  two 
years  of  school  instruction.  It  is  exceedingly  improbable, 
however,  that  a  feeble-minded  subject  with  less  than  6- 
year  intelligence  will  ever  be  able  to  pass  this  test,  how- 
ever long  he  remains  in  school. 

1  See  scoring  card  for  samples  of  satisfactory  and  unsatisfactory  per- 
formances. 


TEST  NO.   Vm,   ALTERNATIVE  2  233 

The  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  these  facts  are  as  fol- 
lows: (1)  Inability  to  pass  the  test  should  not  be  counted 
against  the  child  unless  it  is  known  that  he  has  had  at  least 
a  full  year  of  the  usual  school  instruction.  (2)  Ability  to 
pass  the  test  after  only  two  years  of  school  instruction  is 
almost  certain  proof  that  the  child  has  reached  a  mental 
level  of  at  least  6  years.  (3)  Failure  to  pass  the  test  must 
be  regarded  as  a  grave  symptom  in  the  case  of  the  child  9 
or  more  years  of  age  who  is  known  to  have  attended  school 
as  much  as  two  years.  (4)  For  mental  levels  higher  than  8 
years  the  test  has  hardly  any  diagnostic  value,  since  feeble- 
minded persons  of  8-  or  9-year  intelligence  can  usually  be 
taught  to  write  quite  legibly. 

If  the  limitations  above  set  forth  are  kept  in  mind,  the 
test  is  by  no  means  without  value,  and  is  always  worth 
giving  as  a  supplementary  test.  Learning  to  write  simple 
sentences  from  dictation  is  no  mean  accomplishment.  It 
demands,  in  the  first  place,  a  fairly  complete  mastery  of 
rather  difficult  muscular  coordinations.  Moreover,  these 
coordinations  must  be  firmly  associated  with  the  corre- 
sponding letters  and  words,  for  if  the  writing  coordinations 
are  not  fairly  automatic,  so  much  attention  will  be  required 
to  carry  them  out  that  the  child  will  not  be  able  to  remember 
what  he  has  been  told  to  write.  The  necessity  of  remem- 
bering the  passage  acts  as  a  distraction,  and  writing  from 
dictation  is  therefore  a  more  difficult  task  than  writing 
from  copy. 


CHAPTER  XV 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  IX' 

IX,  1.  Giving  the  date 

Procedure.  Ask  the  following  questions  in  order:  — 

(a)  "  What  day  of  the  week  is  it  to-day?" 

(b)  "What  month  is  it?" 

(c)  "  What  day  of  the  month  is  it?" 

(d)  "What  year  is  it?" 

If  the  child  misunderstands  and  gives  the  day  of  the 
month  for  the  day  of  the  week,  or  vice  versa,  we  merely  re- 
peat the  question  with  suitable  emphasis,  but  give  no  other 
help. 

Scoring.  An  error  of  three  days  in  either  direction  is  al- 
lowed for  c,  but  a,  6,  and  d  must  all  be  given  correctly.  If 
the  child  makes  an  error  and  spontaneously  corrects  it,  the 
change  is  allowed,  but  corrections  must  not  be  called  for  or 
suggested. 

Remarks.  Binet  originally  located  this  test  in  year  IX, 
but  unfortunately  moved  it  to  year  VIII  in  the  1911  re- 
vision. Kuhlmann,  Goddard,  and  Huey  all  retain  it  in  year 
IX,  where,  according  to  our  own  data,  it  unquestionably 
belongs.  With  the  exception  of  Binet's  1911  results,  the 
statistics  for  the  test  are  in  remarkably  close  agreement 
for  children  in  France,  Germany,  England,  and  Eastern 
and  Western  United  States.  It  seems  that  practically 
all  children  in  civilized  countries  have  ample  opportunity 
to  learn  the  divisions  of  the  year,  month,  and  week,  and 


TEST  NO.  IX,   1  235 

to  become  oriented  with  respect  to  these  divisions.  Special 
instruction  is  doubtless  capable  of  hastening  time  orienta- 
tion to  a  certain  degree,  but  not  greatly.  Binet  tells  of  a 
French  ecole  maternelle  attended  by  children  4  to  6  years 
of  age,  where  instruction  was  given  daily  in  regard  to  the 
date,  and  yet  not  a  single  one  of  the  children  was  able  to 
pass  this  test.  This  is  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the  futility 
of  precocious  teaching.  In  spite  of  well-meant  instruction, 
it  is  not  until  the  age  of  8  or  9  years  that  children  have 
enough  comprehension  of  time  periods,  and  sufficient  in- 
terest in  them,  to  keep  very  close  track  of  the  date.  Fail- 
ure to  pass  the  test  at  the  age  of  10  or  11  years  is  a  decidedly 
unfavorable  sign,  unless  the  error  is  very  slight. 

The  fact  that  normal  adults  are  occasionally  unable  to 
give  the  day  of  the  month  is  no  argument  against  the  valid- 
ity of  the  test,  since  the  system  of  tests  is  so  constructed 
as  to  allow  for  accidental  failures  on  any  particular  test. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  very  nearly  100  per  cent  of  normal  12- 
year-old  children  pass  this  test. 

The  unavoidable  fault  of  the  test  is  its  lack  of  uniform- 
ity in  difficulty  at  different  dates.  It  is  easier  for  school 
children  to  give  the  day  of  the  week  on  Monday  or  Friday 
than  on  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  or  Thursday.  Mistakes  in 
giving  the  day  of  the  month  are  less  likely  to  occur  at  the 
beginning  or  end  of  the  month  than  at  any  other  time, 
while  mistakes  in  naming  the  month  are  most  likely  to 
occur  then. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  four  parts  of  this  test  in 
regard  to  difficulty.  Binet  and  Bobertag  both  state  that 
ability  to  name  the  year  comes  last,  but  they  give  no 
figures.  Our  own  data  show  that  the  four  parts  of  the  test 
are  of  almost  exactly  the  same  difficulty  and  that  this  is 
true  at  all  ages. 


236      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

IX,  2.  Arranging  five  weights 

Use  the  five  weights,  3,  6,  9,  12,  and  15  grams.  Be  sure 
that  the  weights  are  identical  in  appearance.  The  weights 
may  be  made  as  described  under  V,  1,  or  they  may  be  pur- 
chased of  C.  H.  Stoelting  &  Co.,  Chicago,  Illinois.  If  no 
weights  are  at  hand  one  of  the  alternative  tests  may  be 
substituted. 

Procedure.  Place  the  five  boxes  on  the  table  in  an  ir- 
regular group  before  the  child  and  say:  "  See  these  boxes. 
They  all  look  alike,  don't  they?  But  they  are  not  alike.  Some 
of  them  are  heavy,  some  are  not  quite  so  heavy,  and  some  are 
still  lighter.  No  two  weigh  the  same.  Now,  I  want  you  to 
find  the  heaviest  one  and  place  it  here.  Then  find  the  one  that 
is  just  a  little  lighter  and  put  it  here.  Then  put  the  next 
lighter  one  Jiere,  and  the  next  lighter  one  here,  and  the  lightest 
of  all  at  this  end  (pointing  each  time  at  the  appropriate 
spot).  Do  you  understand  ?  "  Whatever  the  child  answers, 
in  order  to  make  sure  that  he  does  understand,  we  repeat 
the  instructions  thus:  "  Remember  now,  that  no  two  weights 
are  the  same.  Find  the  heaviest  one  and  put  it  here,  the  next 
heaviest  here,  and  lighter,  lighter,  until  you  have  the  very 
lightest  here.  Ready;  go  ahead" 

It  is  best  to  follow  very  closely  the  formula  here  given, 
otherwise  there  is  danger  of  stating  the  directions  so  ab- 
stractly that  the  subject  could  not  comprehend  them.  A 
formula  like  "7  want  you  to  arrange  the  blocks  in  a  gradually 
decreasing  series  according  to  weight  "  would  be  Greek  to 
most  children  of  10  years. 

If  the  subject  still  seems  at  a  loss  to  know  what  to  do, 
the  instructions  may  be  again  repeated.  But  no  further 
help  of  any  kind  may  be  given.  Do  not  tell  the  subject 
to  take  the  blocks  one  at  a  time  in  the  hand  and  try 
them,  and  do  not  illustrate  by  hefting  the  blocks  your- 


TEST  NO.  IX,   2  237 

self.  It  is  a  part  of  the  test  to  let  the  subject  find  his  own 
method. 

Give  three  trials,  shuffling  the  boxes  after  each.  Do  not 
repeat  the  instructions  before  the  second  and  third  trials 
unless  the  subject  has  used  an  absurd  procedure  in  the 
previous  trial. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  blocks  are  arranged  in 
the  correct  order  twice  out  of  three  trials.  Always  record 
the  order  of  arrangement  and  note  the  number  and  extent 
of  displacement.  Obviously  an  arrangement  like  12-6- 
15-3-9  is  very  much  more  serious  than  one  like  15-12-6- 
9-3,  but  we  require  that  two  trials  be  absolutely  without 
error. 

Scoring  is  facilitated  if  the  blocks  are  marked  on  the 
bottom  so  that  they  may  be  easily  identified.  It  is  then 
necessary  to  exercise  some  care  to  see  that  the  subject  does 
not  examine  the  bottom  of  the  blocks  for  a  clue  as  to  the 
correct  order. 

Remarks.  Binet  originally  located  this  test  in  year  IX, 
but  in  his  1911  revision  changed  it  to  year  VIII.  Other 
revisions  have  retained  it  in  year  IX.  The  correct  location 
depends  upon  the  weights  used  and  upon  the  procedure 
and  scoring.  Kuhlmann  uses  weights  of  3,  9,  18,  27,  36, 
and  45  grams,  and  this  probably  makes  the  test  easier. 
Bobertag  tried  two  sets  of  boxes,  one  set  being  of  larger 
dimensions  than  the  other.  The  larger  gave  decidedly  the 
more  errors.  If  we  require  only  one  success  in  three  trials 
the  test  could  be  located  a  year  or  two  lower  in  the  scale, 
while  three  successes  as  a  standard  would  require  that  it 
be  moved  upward  possibly  as  much  as  two  years. 

Much  depends  also  on  whether  the  child  is  left  to  find 
his  own  method,  and  on  this  there  has  been  much  difference 
of  procedure.  Kuhlmann,  Bobertag,  and  Wallin  illustrate 
the  correct  method  of  making  the  comparison  by  first  heft- 


238       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

ing  and  arranging  the  weights  while  the  subject  looks  on. 
We  prefer  to  keep  the  test  in  its  original  form,  and  with  the 
procedure  and  scoring  we  have  used  it  is  well  located  in 
year  IX. 

Wallin  carries  his  assistance  still  further  by  saying,  after 
the  first  block  has  been  placed,  "  Now,  find  the  heaviest  of 
the  four,"  and  after  the  second  has  been  placed,  "  Now, 
find  the  heaviest  of  the  three,"  etc.  Finally,  when  the  ar- 
rangement has  been  made,  he  tells  the  subject  to  try  them 
again  to  make  sure  the  order  is  correct,  allowing  the  sub- 
ject to  make  whatever  changes  he  thinks  necessary.  This 
procedure  robs  the  test  of  its  most  valuable  features.  The 
experiment  was  not  devised  primarily  as  a  test  of  sensory 
discrimination,  for  it  has  long  been  recognized  that  in- 
dividuals who  have  developed  as  far  as  the  9-  or  10-year 
level  of  intelligence  are  ordinarily  but  little  below  normal 
in  sensory  capacity. 

Psychologically,  the  test  resembles  that  of  comparing 
weights  in  V,  1.  Success  depends,  in  the  first  place,  upon 
the  correct  comprehension  of  the  task  and  the  setting  of  a 
goal  to  be  attained;  secondly,  upon  the  choice  of  a  suitable 
method  for  realizing  the  goal;  and  finally,  upon  the  ability 
to  keep  the  end  clearly  in  consciousness  until  all  the  steps 
necessary  for  its  attainment  have  been  gone  through. 
Elementary  as  are  the  processes  involved,  they  represent 
the  prototype  of  all  purposeful  behavior.  The  statesman, 
the  lawyer,  the  teacher,  the  physician,  the  carpenter,  all 
in  their  own  way  and  with  their  own  materials,  are  con- 
tinually engaged  in  setting  goals,  choosing  means,  and 
inhibiting  the  multitudinous  appeals  of  irrelevant  and  dis- 
tracting ideas. 

In  this  experiment  the  subject  may  fail  in  any  one  of  the 
three  requirements  of  the  test  or  in  all  of  them.  (1)  He 
may  not  comprehend  the  instructions  and  so  be  unable  to 


TEST  NO.  IX,   2  239 

set  the  goal.  (2)  Though  understanding  what  is  expected 
of  him,  he  may  adopt  an  absurd  method  of  carrying  out  the 
task.  Or  (3)  he  may  lose  sight  of  the  end  and  begin  to  play 
with  the  blocks,  stacking  them  on  top  of  one  another,  build- 
ing trains,  tossing  them  about,  etc.  Sometimes  the  guid- 
ing idea  is  not  completely  lost,  but  is  weakened  or  rendered 
only  partially  operative.  In  such  a  case  the  subject  may 
compare  some  of  the  blocks  carefully,  place  others  with- 
out trying  them  at  all,  but  continue  in  his  half -rational, 
half-irrational  procedure  until  all  the  blocks  have  been 
arranged. 

It  is  essential,  therefore,  to  supplement  the  mere  record 
of  success  or  failure  by  jotting  down  a  brief  but  accurate 
description  of  the  performance.  Note  any  hesitation  or  in- 
ability to  grasp  the  instructions.  Note  especially  any  ab- 
surd procedure,  such  as  placing  all  the  blocks  without 
hefting  any  of  them,  comparing  only  some  of  them,  hold- 
ing them  up  and  shaking  them,  hefting  two  at  once  in  the 
same  hand,  etc.  The  ideal  method,  of  course,  is  to  try  all 
the  blocks  carefully  before  placing  any  of  them,  then  to 
make  a  tentative  arrangement,  and  finally,  to  correct  this 
tentative  arrangement  by  means  of  individual  comparisons. 
A  slight  departure  from  this  method  does  not  always  bring 
failure,  but  it  renders  success  less  probable.  As  a  rule  it 
is  only  the  very  intelligent  children  of  10  years  who  think 
to  test  out  their  first  arrangement  by  making  a  final  and 
additional  trial  of  each  block  in  turn.  Contrary  to  what 
might  be  supposed,  success  is  slightly  favored  by  hefting 
the  blocks  successively  with  one  hand  rather  than  by 
taking  one  in  each  hand  for  simultaneous  comparison,  but 
as  the  child  cannot  be  expected  to  know  this,  we  must  re- 
gard the  two  methods  as  equally  logical. 

The  test  of  arranging  weights  has  met  universal  praise. 
Its  special  advantage  is  that  it  tests  the  subject's  intelli- 


240      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

gence  in  the  manipulation  of  things  rather  than  his  capacity 
for  dealing  with  abstractions.  It  tests  his  ability  to  do 
something  rather  than  his  ability  to  express  himself  in 
language.  It  throws  light  upon  certain  factors  of  motor 
adaptation  and  practical  judgment  wThich  play  a  great 
part  in  the  everyday  life  of  the  average  human  being. 
It  depends  as  little  upon  school,  perhaps,  as  any  other  test 
of  the  scale,  and  it  is  readily  usable  with  children  of  all 
nations  without  danger  of  being  materially  altered  in  trans- 
lation. Moreover,  it  is  always  an  interesting  test  for  the 
child.  Bobertag  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  any  8-  or  9-year 
child  who  passes  this  test  cannot  possibly  be  feeble-minded. 
This  may  be  true;  but  the  converse  is  hardly  the  case;  that 
is,  the  failure  of  older  children  is  by  no  means  certain  proof 
of  mental  retardation.  The  same  observation,  however, 
applies  equally  well  to  many  other  of  the  Binet  tests,  some 
of  which  correlate  more  closely  with  true  mental  age  than 
this  one.  A  rather  considerable  fraction  of  normal  12-year- 
olds  fail  on  it,  and  it  is  in  fact  somewhat  less  dependable 
than  certain  other  tests  if  we  wish  to  differentiate  between 
9-year  and  11 -year  intelligence.  But  it  is  a  test  we  could  ill 
afford  to  eliminate.1 


IX,  3.  Making  change 

Procedure.  Ask  the  following  questions  in  the  order  here 
given:  — 

(a)  "If  I  were  to  buy  4  cents  worth  of  candy  and  should  give  the 
storekeeper  10  cents,  how  much  money  would  I  get  back?" 

(6)  "  If  I  bought  1%  cents  worth  and  gave  the  storekeeper  15  cents, 
how  much  would  I  get  back?" 

(c)  "If  I  bought  4  cents  worth  and  gave  the  storekeeper  25  cents, 
how  much  would  I  get  back?" 

1  Compare  with  V,  1. 


TEST  NO.  IX,  3  241 

Coins  are  not  used,  and  the  subject  is  not  allowed  the 
help  of  pencil  and  paper.  If  the  subject  forgets  the  state- 
ment of  the  problem,  it  is  permissible  to  repeat  it  once, 
but  only  once.  The  response  should  be  made  in  ten  or 
fifteen  seconds  for  each  problem. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  two  out  of  three  problems 
are  answered  correctly  in  the  allotted  time.  In  case  two 
answers  are  given  to  a  problem,  we  follow  the  usual  rule  of 
counting  the  second  and  ignoring  the  first. 

Remarks.  Problems  of  this  nature,  when  thoroughly 
standardized,  are  extremely  valuable  as  tests  of  intelli- 
gence. The  difficulty  of  the  test,  as  we  have  used  it,  does 
not  lie  in  the  subtraction  of  4  from  10,  12  from  15,  etc. 
Such  subtractions,  when  given  as  problems  in  subtraction, 
are  readily  solved  by  practically  all  normal  8-year-olds  who 
have  attended  school  as  much  as  two  years.  The  problems 
of  the  test  have  a  twofold  difficulty:  (1)  The  statement  of 
the  problem  must  be  comprehended  and  held  in  mind  until 
the  solution  has  been  arrived  at ;  (2)  the  problem  is  so  stated 
that  the  subject  must  himself  select  the  fundamental 
operation  which  applies.  The  latter  difficulty  is  somewhat 
the  greater  of  the  two,  addition  sometimes  being  employed 
instead  of  subtraction. 

It  is  just  such  difficulties  as  this  that  prove  so  perplex- 
ing to  the  feeble-minded.  High-grade  defectives,  although 
they  require  more  than  the  usual  amount  of  drill  and  are 
likely  to  make  occasional  errors,  are  nevertheless  capable 
of  learning  to  add,  subtract,  multiply,  and  divide  fairly 
well.  Their  main  trouble  comes  in  deciding  which  of  these 
operations  a  given  problem  calls  for.  They  can  master 
routine,  but  as  regards  initiative,  judgment,  and  power  to 
reason  they  are  little  educable.  The  psychology  and  peda- 
gogy of  mental  deficiency  is  epitomized  in  this  statement. 

There  has  been  little  disagreement  as  to  the  proper  loca- 


242      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

tion  of  the  test  of  making  change,  but  various  procedures 
have  been  employed.  Coins  have  generally  been  employed, 
in  which  case  the  subject  is  actually  allowed  to  make  the 
change.  Most  other  revisions  have  also  given  only  a  single 
problem,  usually  4  cents  out  of  20  cents,  or  4  out  of  25,  or 
9  out  of  25.  It  is  evident  that  these  are  not  all  of  equal 
difficulty.  There  is  general  agreement,  however,  that  normal 
children  of  9  years  should  be  able  to  make  simple  change. 

IX,  4.  Repeating  four  digits  reversed 

The  series  are  6-5-2-8;   4-9-3-7;   3-6-2-9. 
Procedure  and  scoring.    Exactly  as  in  VII,  alternate 
test  2.1 

IX,  5.  Using  three  words  in  a  sentence 

Procedure.  The  words  used  are:  — 

(a)  Boy,  ball,  river. 

(b)  Work,  money,  men. 

(c)  Desert,  rivers,  lakes. 

Say:  "  You  know  what  a  sentence  is,  of  course.  A  sentence 
is  made  up  of  some  words  which  say  something.  Now,  I  am 
going  to  give  you  three  words,  and  you  must  make  up  a  sen- 
tence that  has  all  three  words  in  it.  The  three  words  are  '  boy,' 
*  ball,'  '  river.'  Go  ahead  and  make  up  a  sentence  that  has 
all  three  words  in  it."  The  others  are  given  in  the  same 
way. 

Note  that  the  subject  is  not  shown  the  three  words 
written  down,  and  that  the  reply  is  to  be  given  orally. 

If  the  subject  does  not  understand  what  is  wanted,  the 
instruction  may  be  repeated,  but  it  is  not  permissible  to 
illustrate  what  a  sentence  is  by  giving  one.  There  must  be 
no  preliminary  practice. 

1  See  discussion,  p.  207  ff. 


TEST  NO.  IX,  5  243 

A  curious  misunderstanding  which  is  sometimes  encoun- 
tered comes  from  assuming  that  the  sentence  must  be  con- 
structed entirely  of  the  three  words  given.  If  it  appears 
that  the  subject  is  stumbling  over  this  difficulty,  we  ex- 
plain: "  The  three  words  must  be  put  with  some  other  words 
so  that  all  of  them  together  will  make  a  sentence." 

Nothing  is  said  about  hurrying,  but  if  a  sentence  is  not 
given  within  one  minute  the  rule  is  to  count  that  part  of 
the  test  a  failure  and  to  proceed  to  the  next  trio  of  words. 

Give  only  one  trial  for  each  part  of  the  test. 

Do  not  specially  caution  the  child  to  avoid  giving  more 
than  one  sentence,  as  this  is  implied  in  the  formula  used  and 
should  be  understood. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  two  of  the  three  sentences 
are  satisfactory.  In  order  to  be  satisfactory  a  sentence 
must  fulfill  the  following  requirements:  (1)  It  must  either 
be  a  simple  sentence,  or,  if  compound,  must  not  contain 
more  than  two  distinct  ideas;  and  (2)  it  must  not  express 
an  absurdity. 

Slight  changes  in  one  or  more  of  the  key  words  are  dis- 
regarded, as  river  for  rivers,  etc. 

The  scoring  is  difficult  enough  to  justify  rather  extensive 
illustration. 

(a)  Boy,  ball,  river 

Satisfactory.  An  analysis  of  128  satisfactory  responses  gave  the 
following  classification :  — 

(1)  Simple  sentence  containing  a  simple  subject  and  a  simple 
predicate;  as:  "The  boy  threw  his  ball  into  the  river." 
"The  boy  lost  his  ball  in  the  river."    "The  boy's  ball  fell 
into  the  river."    "The  boy  swam  into  the  river  after  his 
ball,"  etc.   This  group  contains  76  per  cent  of  the  correct 
responses. 

(2)  A  sentence  with  a  simple  subject  and  a  compound  predicate; 
as:  "A  boy  went  to  the  river  and  took  his  ball  with  him." 
About  8  per  cent  of  all  were  of  this  type. 

(3)  A  complex  sentence  containing  a  relative  clause  (2  per  cent 


244      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

only);  as:  "The  boy  ran  after  his  ball  which  was  rolling 

toward  the  river." 
(4)  A  compound  sentence  containing  two  independent  clauses 

(about  14  per  cent) ;  as:  "The  boy  had  a  ball  and  he  lost  it 

in  the  river." 
Unsatisfactory.  The  failures  fall  into  four  chief  groups:  — 

(1)  Sentences  with  three  clauses  (or  else  three  separate  sen- 
tences). 

(2)  Sentences  containing  an  absurdity. 

(3)  Sentences  which  omit  one  of  the  key  words. 

(4)  Silence,  due  ordinarily  to  inability  to  comprehend  the  task. 
Group  1  includes  78  per  cent  of  the  failures;  group  2,  about  12 

per  cent;  and  group  3  and  4  about  5  per  cent  each.  Samples  of 
group  1  are:  "There  was  a  boy,  and  he  bought  a  ball,  and  it  fell 
into  the  river."  "I  saw  a  boy,  and  he  had  a  ball,  and  he  was  play- 
ing by  the  river."  Illustration  of  an  absurd  sentence,  "The  boy 
was  swimming  in  the  river  and  he  was  playing  ball." 

(b)  Work,  money,  men 
Satisfactory:  — 

(1)  Sentence  with  a  simple  subject  and  simple  predicate  (in- 
cluding 75  per  cent  of  116  satisfactory  responses) ;  as:  "Men 
work  for  their  money."   "Men  get  money  for  their  work," 
etc. 

(2)  A  complex  sentence  with  a  relative  clause  (12  per  cent  of 
correct  answers);  as:  "Men  who  work  earn  much  money." 
"It  is  easy  for  men  to  earn  money  if  they  are  willing  to 
work,"  etc. 

(3)  A  compound  sentence  with  two  independent,  coordinate 
clauses  (13  per  cent) ;  as:  "Men  work  and  they  earn  money." 
"Some  men  have  money  and  they  do  not  work." 

Unsatisfactory:  — 

(1)  Three  clauses;  as:  "I  know  a  man  and  he  has  money,  and 
he  works  at  the  store." 

(2)  Sentences  which  are  absurd  or  meaningless;  as:  "Men  work 
with  their  money." 

(3)  Omission  of  one  of  the  words. 

(4)  Inability  to  respond. 


TEST  NO.  IX,  5  245 

(c)  Desert,  rivers,  lakes 

Satisfactory:  — 

(1)  Sentences  with  a  simple  subject  and  a  simple  predicate 
(including  84  per  cent  of  126  correct  answers);  as:  "There 
are  no  rivers  or  lakes  in  the  desert."   "The  desert  has  one 
river  and  one  lake,"  etc. 

(2)  A  complex  sentence  with  a  relative  clause  (only  2  per  cent) ; 
as:  "In  the  desert  there  was  a  river  which  flowed  into  a 
lake." 

(3)  A  compound  sentence  with  two  independent,  coordinate 
clauses  (11  per  cent) ;  as:  "We  went  to  the  desert,  and  it  had 
no  rivers  or  lakes." 

(4)  A  compound,  complex  sentence  (3  per  cent  of  all);  as: 
"There  was  a  desert,  and  near  by  there  was  a  river  that 
emptied  into  a  lake." 

Unsatisfactory:  — 

(1)  Sentences  with  three  clauses  (40  per  cent  of  all  failures); 
as:  "A  desert  is  dry,  rivers  are  long,  lakes  are  rough." 

(2)  Sentences  containing  an  absurdity  (12  per  cent  of  the  fail- 
ures); as:  "The  desert,  river,  and  lakes  are  filled  with  swim- 
ming boys."    "The  lake  went  through  the  desert  and  the 
river."    "There  was  a  desert  and  rivers  and  lakes  in  the 
forest."   "The  desert  is  full  of  rivers  and  lakes." 

(3)  Omission  of  one  of  the  words  (40  per  cent  of  the  failures). 

(4)  Inability  to  respond  (8  per  cent). 

Remarks.  The  test  of  constructing  a  sentence  containing 
given  words  was  first  used  by  Masselon  and  is  known  as 
"  the  Masselon  experiment."  Meumann,  who  used  it  in  a 
rather  extended  experiment,1  finds  it  a  good  test  of  intelli- 
gence and  a  reliable  index  as  to  the  richness,  definiteness, 
and  maturity  of  the  associative  processes.  As  Meumann 
shows,  it  is  instructive  to  study  the  qualitative  differences 
between  the  responses  of  bright  and  dull  children,  apart 
from  questions  of  sentence  structure.  These  differences  are 

1  Ueber  eine  neue  Methode  der  Intelligenzpriifung  und  Ubcr  den  Wert 
der  Kombinationsraethodcn,"  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Padagogische  Psychologic 
und  Experimentclle  Padagogik  (1912),  pp.  145-63. 


246      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

especially  discernible  in  (a)  the  logical  qualities  of  the  asso- 
ciations, and  (6)  the  definiteness  of  statement.  As  regards 
(a),  bright  children  are  much  more  likely  to  use  the  given 
words  as  keystones  in  the  construction  of  a  sentence  which 
would  be  logically  suggested  by  them.  For  example, 
donkey,  blows,  suggest  some  such  sentence  as,  "  The  donkey 
receives  blows  because  he  is  lazy."  In  like  manner  we  have 
found  that  the  words  work,  money,  men  usually  suggest 
to  the  more  intelligent  children  a  sentence  like  "  Men  work 
for  then1  money  "  (or  "  because  they  need  money,"  etc.), 
while  the  dull  child  is  more  likely  to  give  some  such  sen- 
tence  as  "  The  men  have  work  and  they  don't  have  much 
money."  That  is,  the  sentence  of  the  dull  child,  even 
though  correct  in  structure  and  free  enough  from  outright 
absurdity  to  satisfy  the  standard  of  scoring  which  we  have 
set  forth,  is  likely  to  express  ideas  which  are  more  or  less 
nondescript,  ideas  not  logically  suggested  by  the  set  of 
words  given. 

The  experiment  is  one  of  the  many  forms  of  the  "  com- 
pletion test,"  or  "  the  combination  method."  As  we  have 
already  noted,  the  power  to  combine  more  or  less  separate 
and  isolated  elements  into  a  logical  whole  is  one  of  the  most 
essential  features  of  intelligence.  The  ability  to  do  in  a 
given  case  depends,  in  the  first  place,  upon  the  number  and 
logical  quality  of  the  associations  which  have  previously 
been  made  with  each  of  the  given  elements  separately,  and 
in  the  second  place,  upon  the  readiness  with  which  these 
ideational  stores  yield  up  the  particular  associations  neces- 
sary for  weaving  the  given  words  into  some  kind  of  unity. 
The  child  must  pass  from  what  is  given  to  what  is  not  given 
but  merely  suggested.  This  requires  a  certain  amount  of 
invention.  Scattered  fragments  must  be  conceived  as  the 
skeleton  of  a  thought,  and  this  skeleton,  or  partial  skeleton, 
must  be  assembled  and  made  whole.  The  task  is  analogous 


TEST  NO.  IX,  5  247 

to  that  which  confronts  the  palaeontologist,  who  is  able  to 
reconstruct,  with  a  high  degree  of  certainty,  the  entire 
skeleton  of  an  extinct  animal  from  the  evidence  furnished 
by  three  or  four  fragments  of  bones.  It  is  no  wonder,  there- 
fore, that  subjects  whose  ideational  stores  are  scanty,  and 
whose  associations  are  based  upon  accidental  rather  than 
logical  connections,  find  the  test  one  of  peculiar  difficulty. 
Invention  thrives  in  a  different  soil. 

Binet  located  this  test  in  year  X.  Goddard  and  Kuhl- 
mann  assign  it  the  same  location,  though  their  actual  statis- 
tics agree  closely  with  our  own.  Our  procedure  makes  the 
test  somewhat  easier  than  that  of  Binet,  who  gave  only  one 
trial  and  used  the  somewhat  more  difficult  words  Pan's, 
river,  fortune.  Others  have  generally  followed  the  Binet 
procedure,  merely  substituting  for  Paris  the  name  of  a 
city  better  known  to  the  subject.  Binet's  requirement  of  a 
written  response  also  makes  the  test  harder. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  obstacle  to  uniformity  in  the  use  of 
the  test  comes  from  the  difficulty  of  scoring,  particularly 
in  deciding  whether  the  sentence  contains  enough  absurdity 
to  disqualify  it,  and  whether  it  expresses  three  separate 
ideas  or  only  two.  It  is  hoped  that  the  rather  large  variety 
of  sample  responses  which  we  have  given  will  reduce  these 
difficulties  to  a  minimum. 

An  additional  word  is  necessary  in  regard  to  what  con- 
stitutes an  absurdity  in  (6).  A  sentence  like  "  There  are 
some  rivers  and  lakes  in  the  desert  "  is  not  an  absurdity  in 
certain  parts  of  Western  United  States.  In  Professor 
Ordahl's  tests  at  Reno,  Nevada,  many  children  whose  in- 
telligence was  altogether  above  suspicion  gave  this  reply. 
The  statement  is,  indeed,  perfectly  true  for  the  semi-arid 
region  in  the  vicinity  of  Reno  known  as  "  the  desert." 
On  the  other  hand,  such  sentences  as  "  The  desert  is  full 
of  rivers  and  lakes,"  or  "  There  are  forty  rivers  and  lakes 


248      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

in  the  desert,"  can  hardly  be  considered  satisfactory. 
Similar  difficulties  are  presented  by  (c),  though  not  so  fre- 
quently. "  Men  who  work  do  not  have  money  "  expresses, 
unfortunately,  more  truth  than  nonsense. 


IX,  6.  Finding  rhymes 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  child:  "  You  know  what  a  rhyme 
is,  of  course.  A  rhyme  is  a  word  that  sounds  like  another 
word.  Two  words  rhyme  if  they  end  in  the  same  sound. 
Understand  ?  "  Whether  the  child  says  he  understands  or 
not,  we  proceed  to  illustrate  what  a  rhyme  is,  as  follows: 
''  Take  the  two  words  '  hat'  and  'cat.'  They  sound  alike  and 
so  they  make  a  rhyme.  '  Hat,'  '  rat,'  '  cat,'  *  bat '  all  rhyme 
with  one  another." 

That  is,  we  first  explain  what  a  rhyme  is  and  then  we 
give  an  illustration.  A  large  majority  of  American  children 
who  have  reached  the  age  of  9  years  understand  perfectly 
what  a  rhyme  is,  without  any  illustration.  A  few,  however, 
think  they  understand,  but  do  not;  and  in  order  to  insure 
that  all  are  given  equal  advantage  it  is  necessary  never  to 
omit  the  illustration. 

After  the  illustration  say:  "Now,  I  am  going  to  give  you 
a  word  and  you  will  have  one  minute  to  find  as  many  words 
as  you  can  that  rhyme  with  it.  The  word  is  '  day.'  Name  all 
the  words  you  can  think  of  that  rhyme  with  '  day.' ' 

If  the  child  fails  with  the  first  word,  before  giving  the 
second  we  repeat  the  explanation  and  give  sample  rhymes 
for  day;  otherwise  we  proceed  without  further  explanation 
to  mill  and  spring,  saying,  "Now,  you  have  another  minute 
to  name  all  the  words  you  can  think  of  that  rhyme  with  *  mill'  ' 
etc.  Apart  from  the  mention  of  "  one  minute  "  say  nothing 
to  suggest  hurrying,  as  this  tends  to  throw  some  children 
into  mental  confusion. 


TEST  NO.   IX,  6  243 

f 

Scoring.  Passed  if  in  two  out  of  the  three  parts  of  the 
experiment  the  child  finds  three  words  which  rhyme  with 
the  word  given,  the  time  limit  for  each  series  being  one 
minute.  Note  that  in  each  case  there  must  be  three  words 
in  addition  to  the  word  given.  These  must  be  real  words, 
not  meaningless  syllables  or  made-up  words.  However,  we 
should  be  liberal  enough  to  accept  such  words  as  ding 
(from  "  ding-dong  ")  for  spring,  Jill  (  see  "  Jack  and  Jill  ") 
for  mill,  Fay  (girl's  name)  for  day,  etc. 

Remarks.  At  first  thought  it  would  seem  that  the  de- 
mands made  by  this  test  upon  intelligence  could  not 
be  very  great.  Sound  associations  between  words  may  be 
contrasted  unfavorably  with  associations  like  those  of 
cause  and  effect,  part  to  whole,  whole  to  part,  opposites, 
etc.  But  when  we  pass  from  a-priori  considerations  to  an 
examination  of  the  actual  data,  we  find  that  the  giving  of 
rhymes  is  closely  correlated  with  general  intelligence. 

The  9-year-olds  who  test  at  or  above  10  years  nearly 
always  do  well  in  finding  rhymes,  while  9-year-olds  who  test 
as  low  as  8  years  seldom  pass.  When  a  test  thus  shows  high 
correlation  with  the  scale  as  a  whole,  we  must  either  accept 
the  test  as  valid  or  reject  the  scale  altogether.  While  the 
feeble-minded  do  not  do  as  well  in  this  test  as  normal  chil- 
dren of  corresponding  mental  age,  the  percentage  of  suc- 
cesses for  them  rises  rapidly  between  mental  age  8  and 
mental  age  10  or  11. 

Closer  psychological  analysis  of  the  processes  involved 
will  show  why  this  is  true.  To  find  rhymes  for  a  given 
word  means  that  one  must  hunt  out  verbal  associations 
under  the  direction  of  a  guiding  idea.  Every  word  has  in- 
numerable associations  and  many  of  these  tend,  in  greater 
or  less  degree,  to  be  aroused  when  the  stimulus  word  is 
given.  In  order  to  succeed  with  the  test,  however,  it  is 
necessary  to  inhibit  all  associations  which  are  not  relevant 


250      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

to  the  desired  end.  The  directing  idea  must  be  held  so 
firmly  in  mind  that  it  will  really  direct  the  thought  asso- 
ciations. Besides  acting  to  inhibit  the  irrelevant,  it  must 
create  a  sort  of  magnetic  stress  (to  borrow  a  figure  from 
physics)  which  will  give  dominance  to  those  associative 
tendencies  pointing  in  the  right  direction.  Even  the  feeble- 
minded child  of  imbecile  grade  has  in  his  vocabulary  a 
great  many  words  which  rhyme  with  day,  mill,  and  spring. 
lie  fails  on  the  test  because  his  verbal  associations  cannot 
be  subjugated  to  the  influence  of  a  directing  idea.  The  end 
to  be  attained  does  not  dominate  consciousness  sufficiently 
to  create  more  than  a  faint  stress.  Instead  of  a  single  mag- 
netic pole  there  is  a  conflict  of  forces.  The  result  is  either 
chaos  or  partial  success.  Mitt  may  suggest  hill,  and  then 
perhaps  the  directing  idea  becomes  suddenly  inoperative 
and  the  child  gives  mountain,  valley,  or  some  other  irrele- 
vant association.  The  lack  of  associations,  however,  is  a 
more  frequent  cause  of  failure  than  inability  to  inhibit  the 
irrelevant. 

If  any  one  supposes  that  finding  rhymes  does  not  draw 
upon  the  higher  mental  powers,  let  him  try  the  experiment 
upon  himself  in  various  stages  of  mental  efficiency,  say  at  9 
A.M.,  when  mentally  refreshed  by  a  good  night  of  sleep  and 
again  when  fatigued  and  sleepy.  Poets  questioned  by  Galton 
on  this  point  all  testified  to  the  greater  difficulty  of  finding 
rhymes  when  mentally  fatigued.  In  this  and  in  many  other 
respects  the  mental  activities  of  the  fatigued  or  sleepy  in- 
dividual approach  the  type  of  mentation  which  is  normal 
to  the  feeble-minded. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  adults  make  a  less  favorable 
showing  in  this  test  than  normal  children  of  corresponding 
mental  age,  Mr.  Knollin's  "  hoboes  "  of  12-year  intelli- 
gence doing  hardly  as  well  as  school  children  of  10-year 
intelligence.  Those  who  are  habitually  employed  in  school 


TEST  NO.  IX,   ALTERNATIVE  1  251 

exercises  probably  acquire  an  adeptness  in  verbal  associa- 
tions which  is  later  gradually  lost  hi  the  preoccupations  of 
real  life. 

There  has  been  more  disagreement  as  to  the  proper  loca- 
tion of  this  test  than  of  any  other  test  of  the  Binet  scale. 
Binet  placed  it  in  year  XII  of  the  1908  scale,  but  shifted 
it  to  year  XV  in  1911.  Kuhlmann  retains  it  in  year  XII, 
while  Goddard  drops  it  down  to  year  XI.  However,  when 
we  examine  the  actual  statistics  for  normal  children  we  do 
not  find  very  marked  disagreement,  and  such  disagreement 
as  is  present  can  be  largely  accounted  for  by  variations 
in  procedure  and  by  differing  conclusions  drawn  from 
identical  data.  In  the  first  place,  Binet  gave  but  one  trial. 
This,  of  course,  makes  the  test  much  harder  than  when 
three  trials  are  given  and  only  two  successes  are  required. 
To  make  one  trial  equal  in  difficulty  to  three  trials  we 
should  perhaps  need  to  demand  only  two  rhymes,  instead 
of  three,  in  the  one  trial.  In  the  second  place,  the  word 
used  by  Binet  (obeissance)  is  much  harder  than  one-syllable 
words  like  day,  mill,  and  spring.  Finally,  the  wide  shift 
of  the  test  from  year  XII  to  year  XV  was  not  justified 
by  the  statistics  of  Binet  himself,  and  the  figures  of  Kuhl- 
mann and  Goddard  are  really  in  exceptionally  close  agree- 
ment with  our  own,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Goddard 
required  three  successes  instead  of  two.  In  four  series  of 
tests,  considered  together,  we  have  found  62  per  cent 
passing  at  year  IX,  81  per  cent  at  year  X,  83  per  cent  at 
year  XI,  and  94  per  cent  at  year  XII. 

IX,  Alternative  test  1 :  naming  the  months 

Procedure.  Simply  ask  the  subject  to  "  name  all  the 
months  of  the  year"  Do  not  start  him  off  by  naming  one 
month;  give  no  look  of  approval  or  disapproval  as  the 


252      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

months  are  being  named,  and  make  no  suggestions  or  com- 
ments of  any  kind. 

When  the  months  have  been  named,  we  "  check  up  " 
the  performance  by  asking:  "  What  month  comes  before 
April?  "  "  What  month  comes  before  July?  "  "  What 
month  comes  before  November?  " 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  months  are  named  in  about  fifteen 
or  twenty  seconds  with  no  more  than  one  error  of  omission, 
repetition,  or  displacement,  and  if  two  out  of  the  three 
check  questions  are  answered  correctly.  Disregard  place 
of  beginning. 

Remarks.  Some  are  inclined  to  consider  this  test  of 
little  value,  because  of  its  supposed  dependence  on  acci- 
dental training.  With  this  opinion  we  cannot  fully  agree. 
The  arguments  already  given  in  favor  of  the  retention  of 
naming  the  days  of  the  week  (year  VII),  apply  equally  well 
in  the  present  case.  It  has  been  shown,  however,  that  age, 
apart  from  intelligence,  does  have  some  effect  on  the  ability 
to  name  the  months.  Defective  adults  of  9-year  intelli- 
gence do  about  as  well  with  it  as  normal  children  of  10- 
year  intelligence. 

The  test  appears  in  year  X  of  Binet's  1908  scale  and  in 
year  IX  of  the  1911  revision.  Goddard  places  it  correctly 
in  year  IX,  while  Kuhlmann  and  Bobertag  have  omitted 
it. 

IX,  Alternative  test  2 :  counting  the  value  of  stamps 

Procedure.  Place  before  the  subject  a  cardboard  on  which 
are  pasted  three  1-cent  and  three  2-cent  stamps  arranged 
as  follows:  111222.  Be  sure  to  lay  the  card  so  that  the 
stamps  will  be  right  side  up  for  the  child.  Say:  "  You 
know,  of  course,  how  much  a  stamp  like  this  costs  (pointing 
to  a  1-cent  stamp).  And  you  know  how  much  one  like  this 


TEST  NO.  IX,   ALTERNATIVE  2  253 

costs  (pointing  to  a  2-cent  stamp).  Now,  how  much  money 
would  it  take  to  buy  all  these  stamps?  " 

Do  not  tell  the  individual  values  of  the  stamps  if  these 
are  not  known,  for  it  is  a  part  of  the  test  to  ascertain  whether 
the  child's  spontaneous  curiosity  has  led  him  to  find  out 
and  remember  their  values.  If  the  individual  values  are 
known,  but  the  first  answer  is  wrong,  a  second  trial  may 
be  given.  In  such  cases,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  be  on 
guard  against  guessing. 

If  the  child  merely  names  an  incorrect  sum  without  saying 
anything  to  indicate  how  he  arrived  at  his  answer,  it  is  well 
to  tell  him  to  figure  it  up  aloud.  "  Tell  me  how  you  got  it.'1 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  correct  value  is  given  in  not  over 
fifteen  seconds. 

Remarks.  The  value  of  this  test  may  be  questioned  on 
two  grounds:  (1)  That  it  has  an  ambiguous  significance, 
since  failure  to  pass  it  may  result  either  from  incorrect 
addition  or  from  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  individual  values 
of  the  stamps;  (2)  that  familiarity  with  stamps  and  their 
values  is  so  much  a  matter  of  accident  and  special  instruc- 
tion that  the  test  is  not  fair. 

Both  criticisms  are  in  a  measure  valid.  The  first,  how- 
ever, applies  equally  well  to  a  great  many  useful  intelli- 
gence tests.  In  fact,  it  is  only  a  minority  in  which  success 
depends  on  but  one  factor.  The  other  criticism  has  less 
weight  than  would  at  first  appear.  While  it  is,  of  course, 
not  impossible  for  an  intelligent  child  to  arrive  at  the  age 
of  9  years  without  having  had  reasonable  opportunity  to 
learn  the  cost  of  the  common  postage  stamps,  the  fact  is 
that  a  large  majority  have  had  the  opportunity  and  that 
most  of  those  of  normal  intelligence  have  taken  advantage 
of  it.  It  is  necessary  once  more  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
in  its  method  of  locating  a  test  the  Binet  system  makes 
ample  allowance  for  "  accidental  "  failures. 


254      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Like  the  tests  of  naming  coins,  repeating  the  names  of 
the  days  of  the  week  or  the  months  of  the  year,  giving 
the  date,  tying  a  bow-knot,  distinguishing  right  and  left, 
naming  the  colors,  etc.,  this  one  also  throws  light  on  the 
child's  spontaneous  interest  in  common  objects.  It  is 
mainly  the  children  of  deficient  intellectual  curiosity  who 
do  not  take  the  trouble  to  learn  these  things  at  some- 
where near  the  expected  age. 

The  test  was  located  in  year  VIII  of  the  Binet  scale. 
However,  Binet  used  coins,  three  single  and  three  double 
sous.  Since  we  do  not  have  either  a  half-cent  or  a  2-cent 
coin,  it  has  been  necessary  to  substitute  postage  stamps. 
This  changes  the  nature  of  the  test  and  makes  it  much 
harder.  It  becomes  less  a  test  of  ability  to  do  a  simple  sum, 
and  more  a  test  of  knowledge  as  to  the  value  of  the  stamps 
used.  That  the  test  is  easy  enough  for  year  VIII  when  it 
can  be  given  in  the  original  form  is  indicated  by  all  the 
French,  German,  and  English  statistics  available,  but  four 
separate  series  of  Stanford  tests  agree  in  finding  it  too 
hard  for  year  VIII  when  stamps  are  substituted  and  the 
test  is  carried  out  according  to  the  procedure  described 
above. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOB  YEAR  X 
X,  1.  Vocabulary  (thirty  definitions,  5400  words) 

Procedure  and  scoring  as  in  VIII,  6.  At  year  X,  thirty 
words  should  be  correctly  defined. 

X,  2.  Detecting  absurdities 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  child:  "  I  am  going  to  read  a 
sentence  which  has  something  foolish  in  it,  some  nonsense.  I 
want  you  to  listen  carefully  and  tell  me  what  is  foolish  about 
it."  Then  read  the  sentences,  rather  slowly  and  in  a 
matter-of-fact  voice,  saying  after  each:  "  What  is  foolish 
about  that?  "  The  sentences  used  are  the  following:  — 

(a)  "A  man  said:  'I  know  a  road  from  my  house  to  the  city  which 
is  downhill  all  the  way  to  the  city  and  downhill  all  the  way  back 
home.'" 

(b)  "An  engineer  said  that  the  more  cars  he  had  on  his  train  the 

aster  he  could  go." 

'  Yesterday  the  police  found  the  body  of  a  girl  cut  into  eighteen 

.    They  believe  that  she  killed  herself." 
(d)yThere  was  a  railroad  accident  yesterday,  but  it  was  not  very 

^serious.   Only  forty-eight  people  were  killed." 
(e)/\"  A  bicycle  rider,  being  thrown  from  his  bicycle  in  an  accident, 
struck  his  head  against  a  stone  and  was  instantly  killed.   They 
picked  him  up  and  carried  him  to  the  hospital,  and  they  do  not 
think  he  will  get  well  again." 

Each  should  ordinarily  be  answered  within  thirty  sec- 
onds. If  the  child  is  silent,  the  sentence  should  be  re- 


256      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

peated;  but  no  other  questions  or  suggestions  of  any  kind 
are  permissible.  Such  questions  as  "  Could  the  road  be 
downhill  both  ways?  "  or,  "  Do  you  think  the  girl  could  have 
killed  herself?  "  would,  of  course,  put  the  answer  in  the 
child's  mouth.  It  is  even  best  to  avoid  laughing  as  the 
sentence  is  read. 

Owing  to  the  child's  limited  power  of  expression  it  is 
not  always  easy  to  judge  from  the  answer  given  whether 
the  absurdity  has  really  been  detected  or  not.  In  such 
cases  ask  him  to  explain  himself,  using  some  such  formula 
as:  "7  am  not  sure  I  know  what  you  mean.  Explain  what 
you  mean.  Tell  me  what  is  foolish  in  the  sentence  I  read." 
This  usually  brings  a  reply  the  correctness  or  incorrectness 
of  which  is  more  apparent,  while  at  the  same  time  the  for- 
mula is  so  general  that  it  affords  no  hint  as  to  the  correct 
answer.  Additional  questions  must  be  used  with  extreme 
caution. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  the  absurdity  is  detected  in  four  out 
of  the  five  statements.  The  following  are  samples  of  satis- 
factory and  unsatisfactory  answers  : — 

(a)  The  road  downhill 

Satisfactory.  "If  it  was  downhill  to  the  city  it  would  be  uphill 
coming  back."  "It  can't  be  downhill  both  directions."  "That 
could  not  be."  "That  is  foolish.  (Explain.)  Because  it  must  be 
uphill  one  way  or  the  other."  "That  would  be  a  funny  road. 
(Explain.)  No  road  can  be  like  that.  It  can't  be  downhill  both 
ways." 

Unsatisfactory.  "Perhaps  he  took  a  little  different  road  coming 
back."  "I  guess  it  is  a  very  crooked  road."  "Coming  back  he 
goes  around  the  hill."  "The  man  lives  down  in  a  valley."  "The 
road  was  made  that  way  so  it  would  be  easy."  "Just  a  road.  I 
don't  see  anything  foolish."  "He  should  say,  'a  road  which  goes.' " 

(6)  What  the  engineer  said 

Satisfactory.  "If  he  has  more  cars  he  will  go  slower."  "It  is 
the  other  way.  If  he  wants  to  go  faster  he  must  n't  have  so  many 


TEST  NO.   X,   2  257 

cars."  "The  man  did  n't  mean  what  he  said,  or  else  it  was  a  slip 
of  the  tongue."  "That's  the  way  it  would  be  if  he  was  going  down- 
hill." "Foolish,  because  the  cars  don't  help  pull  the  train."  "He 
ought  to  say  slower,  not  faster." 

Unsatisfactory.  "A  long  train  is  nicer."  "The  engine  pulls 
harder  if  the  train  has  lots  of  cars."  "That's  all  right.  I  suppose 
he  likes  a  big  train."  "Nothing  foolish;  when  I  went  to  the  city  I 
saw  a  train  that  had  lots  of  cars  and  it  was  going  awfully  fast." 
"He  should  have  said,  'the  faster  I  can  run.'  " 

(c)  The  girl  who  was  thought  to  have  killed  herself 

Satisfactory.  "She  could  not  have  cut  herself  into  eighteen 
pieces."  "She  would  have  been  dead  before  that."  "She  might 
have  cut  two  or  three  pieces  off,  but  she  could  n't  do  the  rest." 
(Laughing)  "Well,  she  may  have  killed  herself;  but  if  she  did  it's  a 
sure  thing  that  some  one  else  came  along  after  and  chopped  her 
up."  "That  policeman  must  have  been  a  fool.  (Explain.)  To 
think  that  she  could  chop  herself  into  eighteen  pieces." 

Unsatisfactory.  "Think  that  she  killed  herself;  they  know  she 
did."  "They  can't  be  sure.  Some  one  may  have  killed  her." 
"It  was  a  foolish  girl  to  kill  herself."  "How  can  they  tell  who 
killed  her?"  "No  girl  would  kill  herself  unless  she  was  crazy." 
"It  ought  to  read:  'They  think  that  she  committed  suicide.'" 

(d)  The  railroad  accident 

Satisfactory.  "That  was  very  serious."   "I  should  like  to  know  ' 
what  you  would  call  a  serious  accident!"   "You  could  say  it  was 
not  serious  if  two  or  three  people  were  killed,  but  forty-eight,  — 
that  is  serious." 

Unsatisfactory.  "It  was  a  foolish  mistake  that  made  the  acci- 
dent." "They  could  n't  help  it.  It  was  an  accident."  "It  might 
have  been  worse."  "Nothing  foolish;  it's  just  sad." 

(e)  The  bicycle  rider 

Satisfactory.  "How  could  he  get  well  after  he  was  already 
killed?"  "Why,  he's  already  dead."  "No  use  to  take  a  dead  man 
to  the  hospital."  "They  ought  to  have  taken  him  to  a  grave- 
yard!" 

Unsatisfactory.  "Foolish  to  fall  off  of  a  bicycle.  He  should  have 
known  how  to  ride."  "They  ought  to  have  carried  him  home. 


258      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

(Why?)  So  his  folks  could  get  a  doctor."  "He  should  have  been 
more  careful."  "Maybe  they  can  cure  him  if  he  is  n't  hurt  very 
bad."  "There's  nothing  foolish  in  that." 

Remarks.  The  detection  of  absurdities  is  one  of  the  most 
ingenious  and  serviceable  tests  of  the  entire  scale.  It  is 
little  influenced  by  schooling,  and  it  comes  nearer  than  any 
other  to  being  a  test  of  that  species  of  mother-wit  which 
we  call  common  sense.  Like  the  "  comprehension  ques- 
tions," it  may  be  called  a  test  of  judgment,  using  this  term 
in  the  colloquial  and  not  in  the  logical  sense.  The  stupid 
person,  whether  depicted  in  literature,  proverb,  or  the 
ephemeral  joke  column,  is  always  (and  justly,  it  would 
seem)  characterized  by  a  huge  tolerance  for  absurd  contra- 
dictions and  by  a  blunt  sensitivity  for  the  fine  points  of  a 
joke.  Intellectual  discrimination  and  judgment  are  in- 
ferior. The  ideas  do  not  cross-light  each  other,  but  remain 
relatively  isolated.  Hence,  the  most  absurd  contradictions 
are  swallowed,  so  to  speak,  without  arousing  the  protest  of 
the  critical  faculty.  The  latter,  indeed,  is  only  a  name  for 
the  tendency  of  intellectually  irreconcilable  elements  to 
clash.  If  there  is  no  clash,  if  the  elements  remain  apart, 
it  goes  without  saying  that  there  will  be  no  power  of 
criticism. 

The  critical  faculty  begins  its  development  in  the  early 
years  and  strengthens  pari  passu  with  the  growing  wealth 
of  inter-associations  among  ideas;  but  in  the  average  child 
it  is  not  until  the  age  of  about  10  years  that  it  becomes 
equal  to  tasks  like  those  presented  in  this  test.  Eight-year 
intelligence  hardly  ever  scores  more  than  two  or  three  cor- 
rect answers  out  of  five.  By  12,  the  critical  ability  has  so 
far  developed  that  the  test  is  nearly  always  passed.  It  is 
an  invaluable  test  for  the  higher  grades  of  mental  deficiency. 

As  a  test  of  the  critical  powers  Binet  first  used  "  trap 
questions  ";  as,  for  example,  "  Is  snow  red  or  black?  " 


TEST  NO.  X,  2  259 

The  results  were  disappointing,  for  it  was  found  that  owing 
to  timidity,  deference,  and  suggestibility  normal  children 
often  failed  on  such  questions.  Deference  is  more  marked 
in  normal  than  in  feeble-minded  children,  and  it  is  because 
of  the  influence  of  this  trait  that  it  is  necessary  always  to 
forewarn  the  subject  that  the  sentence  to  be  given  contains 
nonsense. 

Binet  located  the  test  in  year  XI  of  the  1908  scale,  but 
changed  it  to  year  X  in  1911.  Goddard  and  Kuhlmann 
retain  it  in  year  XI.  The  large  majority  of  the  statistics, 
including  those  of  Goddard  and  Kuhlmann,  warrant  the 
location  of  the  test  in  year  X.  Not  all  have  used  the  same 
absurdities,  and  these  have  not  been  worded  uniformly. 
Most  have  required  three  successes  out  of  five,  but  Bober- 
tag  and  Kuhlmann  require  three  out  of  four;  Bobertag's 
procedure  is  also  different  in  that  he  does  not  forewarn 
the  child  that  an  absurdity  is  to  follow. 

The  present  form  of  the  test  is  the  result  of  three  suc- 
cessive refinements.  It  will  be  noted  that  we  have  made  two 
substitutions  in  Binet's  list  of  absurdities.  Those  omitted 
from  the  original  scale  are:  "  /  have  three  brothers  —  Paul, 
Ernest,  and  myself,"  and,  "  //  /  were  going  to  commit 
suicide  I  would  not  choose  Friday,  because  Friday  is  an 
unlucky  day  and  would  bring  me  misfortune"  The  last 
has  a  puzzling  feature  which  makes  it  much  too  hard  for 
year  X,  and  the  other  is  objectionable  with  children  who 
are  accustomed  to  hear  a  foreign  language  in  which  the 
form  of  expression  used  in  the  absurdity  is  idiomatically 
correct. 

The  two  we  have  substituted  for  these  objectionable  ab- 
surdities are,  "  The  road  downhill  "  and  "  What  the  en- 
gineer said."  The  five  we  have  used,  though  of  nearly  equal 
difficulty,  are  here  listed  in  the  order  from  easiest  to  hard- 
est. Our  series  as  a  whole  is  slightly  easier  than  Binet's. 


360      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

X,  3.  Drawing  designs  from  memory 

Procedure.  Use  the  designs  shown  on  the  accompany- 
ing printed  form.  If  copies  are  used  they  must  be  exact 
in  size  and  shape.  Before  showing  the  card  say:  "  This 
card  has  two  drawings  on  it.  I  am  going  to  show  them  to 
you  for  ten  seconds,  then  I  will  take  the  card  away  and  let  you 
draw  from  memory  what  you  have  seen.  Examine  both  draw- 
ings carefully  and  remember  that  you  have  only  ten  seconds." 

Provide  pencil  and  paper  and  then  show  the  card  for 
ten  seconds,  holding  it  at  right  angles  to  the  child's  line  of 
vision  and  with  the  designs  in  the  position  given  in  the 
plate.  Have  the  child  draw  the  designs  immediately  after 
they  are  removed  from  sight. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  one  of  the  designs  is  re- 
produced correctly  and  the  other  about  half  correctly.  "  Cor- 
rectly "  means  that  the  essential  plan  of  the  design  has 
been  grasped  and  reproduced.  Ordinary  irregularities  due  to 
lack  of  motor  skill  or  to  hasty  execution  are  disregarded. 
"  Half  correctly  "  means  that  some  essential  part  of  the 
design  has  been  omitted  or  misplaced,  or  that  parts  have 
been  added. 

The  sample  reproductions  shown  on  the  scoring  card 
will  serve  as  a  guide.  It  will  be  noted  that  an  inverted 
design,  or  one  whose  right  and  left  sides  have  been  trans- 
posed, is  counted  only  half  correct,  however  perfect  it  may 
be  in  other  respects;  also  that  design  b  is  counted  only  hah* 
correct  if  the  inner  rectangle  is  not  located  off  center. 

Remarks.  Binet  states  that  the  main  factors  involved  in 
success  are  "  attention,  visual  memory,  and  a  little  analy- 
sis." The  power  of  rapid  analysis  would  seem  to  be  the 
most  important,  for  if  the  designs  are  analyzed  they  may 
be  reproduced  from  a  verbal  memory  of  the  analysis.  With- 
out some  analysis  it  would  hardly  be  possible  to  remember 


TEST  NO.  X,  3  261 

the  designs  at  all,  as  one  of  them  contains  thirteen  lines 
and  the  other  twelve.  The  memory  span  for  unrelated 
objects  is  far  too  limited  to  permit  us  to  grasp  and  retain 
that  number  of  unrelated  impressions.  Success  is  possible 
only  by  grouping  the  lines  according  to  their  relationships, 
so  that  several  of  them  are  given  a  unitary  value  and  remem- 
bered as  one.  In  this  manner,  the  design  to  the  right,  which 
is  composed  of  twelve  lines,  may  be  reduced  to  four  ele- 
ments: (1)  The  outer  rectangle;  (2)  the  inner  rectangle; 
(3)  the  off-center  position  of  the  inner  rectangle;  and  (4) 
the  joining  of  the  angles.  Of  course  the  child  does  not  or- 
dinarily make  an  analysis  as  explicit  as  this;  but  analysis 
of  some  kind,  even  though  it  be  unconscious,  is  necessary 
to  success. 

Ability  to  pass  the  test  indicates  the  presence,  in  a  cer- 
tain definite  amount,  of  the  tendency  for  the  contents  of 
consciousness  to  fuse  into  a  meaningful  whole.  Failure  in- 
dicates that  the  elements  have  maintained  their  unitary- 
character  or  have  fused  inadequately.  It  is  seen,  therefore, 
that  the  test  has  a  close  kinship  with  the  test  of  memory 
for  sentences.  The  latter,  also,  permits  the  fusion  or  group- 
ing of  impressions  according  to  meaning,  with  the  result 
that  five  or  six  times  as  many  meaningful  syllables  as  non- 
sense syllables  or  digits  can  be  retained. 

Binet  had  many  more  failures  on  design  a  than  on  de- 
sign 6.  This  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  he  showed 
the  designs  with  our  b  to  the  left.  A  majority  of  subjects, 
probably  because  of  the  influence  of  reading  habits,  ex- 
amine first  the  figure  to  the  left,  and  because  of  the  short 
time  allowed  for  the  inspection  are  unable  to  devote  much 
time  to  the  design  at  the  right.  We  have  placed  the  design 
of  greater  intrinsic  difficulty  at  the  left,  with  the  result 
that  the  failures  are  almost  equally  divided  between  the 
two. 


262      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Binet  used  this  test  in  his  unstandardized  series  of  1905, 
omitted  it  in  1908,  but  included  it  in  the  1911  revision, 
locating  it  in  year  X.  Except  for  Goddard,  who  recom- 
mends year  XI,  there  is  rather  general  agreement  that  the 
test  belongs  at  year  X.  Our  own  data  show  that  it  may  be 
placed  either  at  year  X  or  year  XI,  according  as  the  grading 
is  rigid  or  lenient. 

X,  4.  Reading  for  eight  memories 

Material.  We  use  Binet's  selection,  slightly  adapted,  as 
follows:  — 

New  York,  September  5th.  A  fire  last  night  burned  three  houses 
near  the  center  of  the  city.  It  took  some  time  to  put  it  out.  The  loss  was 
fifty  thousand  dollars,  and  seventeen  families  lost  their  homes.  In  sav- 
ing a  girl,  who  was  asleep  in  bed,  a  fireman  was  burned  on  the  hands. 

The  copy  of  the  selection  used  by  the  subject  should  be 
printed  in  heavy  type  and  should  not  contain  the  bars 
dividing  it  into  memories.  The  Stanford  record  booklet 
contains  the  selection  in  two  forms,  one  suitable  for 
use  in  scoring,  the  other  hi  heavy  type  to  be  read  by  the 
subject. 

Procedure.  Hand  the  selection  to  the  subject,  who  should 
be  seated  comfortably  in  a  good  light,  and  say:  "  /  want 
you  to  read  this  for  me  as  nicely  as  you  can."  The  subject 
must  read  aloud. 

Pronounce  all  the  words  which  the  subject  is  unable  to 
make  out,  not  allowing  more  than  five  seconds'  hesitation 
in  such  a  case. 

Rpnnrrl  ,«|]]  frrnrR  ^Tt7rTtF"TTrTf*fidinp  the  selection,  and  the 
exact  time.  By  "  error  "  is  meant  the  omission,_substitu- 
tion,  transposition,  or^spfoininciatton'of  one  worop 

The  subject  is  not  warned~m  advance  that  he  will  be 
asked  to  report  what  he  has  read,  but  as  soon  as  he  has 


TEST  NO.  X,  4  263 

finished  reading,  put  the  selection  out  of  sight  and  say: 
"  Very  well  done.  Now,  I  want  you  to  tell  me  what  you 
read.  Begin  at  the  first  and  tell  everything  you  can  remember." 
After  the  subject  has  repeated  everything  he  can  recall  and 
has  stopped,  say:  "  And  what  else?  Can  you  remember  any 
more  of  it  ?  "  Give  no  other  aid  of  any  kind.  It  is  of  course 
not  permissible,  when  the  child  stops,  to  prompt  him  with 
such  questions  as,  "And  what  next?  Where  were  the  houses 
burned?  What  happened  to  the  fireman?  "  etc.  The  report 
must  be  spontaneous. 

Now  and  then,  though  not  often,  a  subject  hesitates  or 
even  refuses  to  try,  saying  he  is  unable  to  do  it.  Perhaps 
he  has  misunderstood  the  request  and  thinks  he  is  expected 
to  repeat  the  selection  word  for  word,  as  in  the  tests  of 
memory  for  sentences.  We  urge  a  little  and  repeat:  "  Tell 
me  in  your  own  words  all  you  can  remember  of  it."  Others 
misunderstand  in  a  different  way,  and  thinking  they  are 
expected  to  tell  merely  what  the  story  is  about,  they  say: 
"  It  was  about  some  houses  that  burned."  In  such  cases  we 
repeat  the  instructions  with  special  emphasis  on  the  words 
all  you  can  remember. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  selection  is  read  in 
thirty-five  seconds  with  not  more  than  two  errors,  and  if  the 
report  contains  at  least  eight  "  memories."  By  underscoring 
the  memories  correctly  reproduced,  and  by  interlineations 
to  show  serious  departures  from  the  text,  the  record  can 
be  made  complete  with  a  minimum  of  trouble. 

The  main  difficulty  in  scoring  is  to  decide  whether  a 
memory  has  been  reproduced  correctly  enough  to  be 
counted.  Absolutely  literal  reproduction  is  not  expected. 
The  rule  is  to  count  all  memories  whose  thought  is  repro- 
duced with  only  minor  changes  in  the  wording.  "  It  took 
quite  a  while  "  instead  of  "  it  took  some  time  "  is  satis- 
factory; likewise,  "  got  burnt  "  for  "  was  burned  "; 


264      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

"  who  was  sleeping  "  for  "  who  was  asleep  ";  "  are  home- 
less "  for  "  lost  their  homes  ";  "  in  the  middle  "  for  "  near 
the  center  ";  "  a  big  fire  "  for  "  a  fire,"  etc. 

Memories  as  badly  mutilated  as  the  following,  however, 
are  not  counted:  "  A  lot  of  buildings  "for"  three  houses;  " 
"  a  man  "  for  "  a  fireman  ";  "  who  was  sick  "  for  "  who 
was  asleep  ";  etc.  Occasionally  we  may  give  half  credit, 
as  in  the  case  of  "  was  seventeen  thousand  dollars  "  for 
"was  fifty  thousand  dollars  ";  "  and  fifteen  families  "  for 
"  and  seventeen  families,"  etc. 

Remarks.  Are  we  warranted  in  using  at  all  as  a  measure 
of  intelligence  a  test  which  depends  as  much  on  instruc- 
tion as  this  one  does?  Many  are  inclined  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion in  the  negative.  The  test  has  been  omitted  from  the 
revisions  of  Goddard,  Kuhlmann,  and  Binet  himself.  As 
regards  Binet's  earlier  test  of  reading  for  two  memories,  in 
year  VIII,  there  could  hardly  be  any  difference  of  opinion. 
The  ability  to  read  at  that  age  depends  so  much  on  the  ac- 
cident of  environment  that  the  test  is  meaningless  unless 
we  know  all  about  the  conditions  which  have  surrounded  the 
child. 

The  use  of  the  test  in  year  X,  however,  is  a  very  different 
matter.  There  are  comparatively  few  children  of  that  age 
who  will  fail  to  pass  it  for  lack  of  the  requisite  school  in- 
struction. Children  of  10  years  who  have  attended  school 
with  reasonable  regularity  for  three  years  are  practically 
always  able  to  read  the  selection  in  thirty -five  seconds  and 
without  over  two  mistakes  unless  they  are  retarded  almost 
to  the  border-line  of  mental  deficiency.  Of  our  10-year- 
olds  who  failed  to  meet  the  test,  only  a  fourth  did  so  be- 
cause of  inability  to  meet  the  reading  requirements  as 
regards  time  or  mistakes.  The  remaining  failures  were 
caused  by  inadequate  report,  and  most  of  these  subjects 
were  of  the  distinctly  retarded  group. 


TEST  NO.  X,  4  265 

We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  given  anything  ap- 
proaching normal  educational  advantages,  the  test  is  really 
a  measure  of  intelligence.  Used  with  due  caution,  it  is  per- 
haps as  valuable  as  any  other  test  in  the  scale.  It  is  only 
necessary,  in  case  of  failure,  to  ascertain  the  facts  regard- 
ing the  child's  educational  opportunities.  Even  this  pre- 
caution is  superfluous  in  case  the  subject  tests  as  low  as  8 
years  by  the  remainder  of  the  scale.  A  safe  rule  is  to  omit 
the  test  from  the  calculation  of  mental  age  if  the  subject 
has  not  attended  school  the  equivalent  of  two  or  three 
years. 

It  has  been  contended  by  some  that  tests  in  which  suc- 
cess depends  upon  language  mastery  cannot  be  real  tests  of 
intelligence.  By  such  critics  language  tests  have  been  set 
over  against  intelligence  tests  as  contrasting  opposites.  It 
is  easy  to  show,  however,  that  this  view  is  superficial  and 
psychologically  unsound.  Every  one  who  has  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  facts  of  mental  growth  knows  that  language 
mastery  of  some  degree  is  the  sine  qua  non  of  conceptual 
thinking.  Language  growth,  in  fact,  mirrors  the  entire 
mental  development.  There  are  few  more  reliable  indica- 
tions of  a  subject's  stage  of  intellectual  maturity  than  his 
mastery  of  language. 

The  rate  of  reading,  for  example,  is  a  measure  of  the  rate 
of  association.  Letters  become  associated  together  in  cer- 
tain combinations  making  words,  words  into  word  groups 
and  sentences.  Recognition  is  for  the  most  part  an  asso- 
ciative process.  Rapid  and  accurate  association  will  mean 
ready  recognition  of  the  printed  form.  Since  language  units 
(whether  letters,  words,  or  word  groups)  have  more  or  less 
preferred  associations  according  to  then*  habitual  arrange- 
ment into  larger  units,  it  comes  about  that  in  the  normal 
mind  under  normal  conditions  these  preferred  sequences 
arouse  the  apperceptive  complex  necessary  to  make  a  run- 


266      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

ning  recognition  rapid  and  easy.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  in  the  subnormal  mind  the  habitual  common  associa- 
tions are  less  firmly  fixed,  thus  diminishing  the  effective- 
ness of  the  ever-changing  apperceptive  expectancy.  Read- 
ing is,  therefore,  largely  dependent  on  what  James  calls 
the  "  fringe  of  consciousness  "  and  the  "  consciousness  of 
meaning."  In  reading  connected  matter,  every  unit  is  big 
with  a  mass  of  tendencies.  The  smaller  and  more  isolated 
the  unit,  the  greater  is  the  number  of  possibilities.  Every 
added  unit  acts  as  a  modifier  limiting  the  number  of  ten- 
dencies, until  we  have  finally,  in  case  of  a  large  mental  unit, 
a  fairly  manageable  whole.  When  the  most  logical  and 
suitable  of  these  associations  arise  easily  from  subcon- 
sciousness  to  consciousness,  recognition  is  made  easy, 
and  their  doing  so  will  depend  on  whether  the  habitual 
relations  of  the  elements  have  left  permanent  traces  in  the 
mind. 

The  reading  of  the  subnormal  subject  bears  a  close  anal- 
ogy to  the  reading  of  nonsense  matter  by  the  normal  person. 
It  has  been  ascertained  by  experiment  that  such  reading 
requires  about  twice  as  much  time  as  the  reading  of  con- 
nected matter.  This  is  true  for  the  reason  that  out  of  thou- 
sands of  associations  possible  with  each  word,  no  particular 
association  is  favored.  The  apperceptive  expectancy,  prac- 
tically nil  in  the  reading  of  nonsense  material,  must  be 
decidedly  deficient  in  all  poor  reading. 

Furthermore,  in  the  case  of  the  ordinary  reader  there  is 
a  feeling  of  rightness  or  wrongness  about  the  thought  se- 
quences. That  less  intelligent  subjects  have  this  sense  of 
fitness  to  a  much  less  degree  is  evidenced  by  their  passing 
over  words  so  mutilated  in  pronunciation  as  to  deprive 
them  of  all  meaning.  The  transposition  of  letters  and  words, 
and  the  failure  to  observe  marks  of  punctuation,  point  to 
the  same  thing.  In  other  words,  all  the  reading  of  the 


TEST  NO.  X,  4  267 

stupid  subject  is  with  material  which  to  him  is  more  or 
less  nonsensical.1 

A  little  observation  will  convince  one  that  mentally  re- 
tarded subjects,  even  when  they  possess  a  reasonable  degree 
of  fluency  in  recognizing  printed  words,  do  not  sense  shades 
of  meaning.  Their  reading  is  by  small  units.  Words  and 
phrases  do  not  fuse  into  one  mental  content,  but  remain 
relatively  unconnected.  The  expression  is  monotonous  and 
the  voice  has  more  of  the  unnatural  "  schoolroom  "  pitch. 
They  read  more  slowly,  more  often  misplace  the  emphasis, 
and  miscall  more  words.  In  short,  one  who  has  psychological 
insight  and  is  acquainted  with  reading  standards  can  easily 
detect  the  symptoms  of  intellectual  inferiority  by  hearing 
a  dull  subject  read  a  brief  selection. 

The  giving  of  memories  is  also  significant.  Feeble-minded 
adults  who  have  been  well  schooled  are  sometimes  able  to 
call  the  words  of  the  text  fairly  fluently,  but  are  usually 
unable  to  give  more  than  a  scanty  report  of  what  has  been 
read.  The  scope  of  attention  has  been  exhausted  in  the 
mere  recognition  and  pronouncing  of  words.  In  general, 
the  greater  the  mechanical  difficulties  which  a  subject  en- 
counters, the  less  adequate  is  his  report  of  memories. 

The  test  has,  however,  one  real  fault.  School  children 
have  a  certain  advantage  in  it  over  older  persons  of  the 
same  mental  age  whose  school  experience  is  less  recent. 
Adult  subjects  tend  to  give  their  report  in  less  literal  form. 
It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  give  credit  for  the  reproduction 
of  the  ideas  of  the  passage  rather  than  for  strictly  literal 
"  memories." 

The  selection  we  have  used  is,  with  minor  changes,  the 
same  as  Binet's.  His  selection  was  divided  into  nineteen 
memories.  The  one  here  given  has  twenty-one  memories. 

1  See  "Genius  and  Stupidity,"  by  Lewis  M.  Terman,  in  Pedagogical 
Seminary,  September,  1000,  p.  340 /. 


268      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Binet  used  the  test  both  in  year  VIII  and  year  IX,  requir- 
ing two  memories  at  year  VIII  and  six  memories  at  year 
IX.  When  we  require  eight  memories,  as  we  have  done, 
the  test  becomes  difficult  enough  for  non-selected  school 
children  of  10  years.  Location  in  year  X  seems  preferable, 
because  it  insures  that  the  child  will  almost  certainly  have 
had  the  schooling  requisite  for  learning  to  read  a  selection 
of  this  difficulty,  even  if  he  has  started  to  school  at  a  later 
age  than  is  customary.  Naturally,  placing  the  test  higher 
hi  the  scale  makes  it  more  a  test  of  report  and  less  a  test 
of  ability  to  recognize  and  pronounce  printed  words. 

X,  5.  Comprehension,  fourth  degree 

The  questions  for  this  year  are:  — 

(a)  "What  ought  you  to  say  when  some  one  asks  your  opinion 
about  a  person  you  don't  know  very  well?" 

(6)  "  What  ought  you  to  do  before  undertaking  (beginning)  some- 
thing very  important?" 

(c)  "  Why  should  we  judge  a  person  more  by  his  actions  than  by  his 
words?" 

The  procedure  is  the  same  as  for  the  previous  compre- 
hension tests.  Each  question  may  be  repeated,  but  its 
form  must  not  be  changed.  It  is  not  permissible  to  make 
any  explanation  whatever  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  ques- 
tion, except  to  substitute  beginning  for  undertaking  when 
(6)  seems  not  to  be  comprehended. 

Scoring.  Two  out  of  the  three  questions  must  be  answered 
satisfactorily.  Study  of  the  following  classified  responses 
should  make  scoring  fairly  easy  in  most  cases:  — 

(a)  When  some  one  asks  your  opinion 

Satisfactory.  "I  would  say  I  don't  know  him  very  well"  (42 
per  cent  of  the  correct  answers).  "Tell  him  what  I  know  and  no 
more"  (34  per  cent  of  correct  answers).  "I  would  say  that  I'd 


TEST  NO.  X,  5  269 

rather  not  express  any  opinion  about  him"  (20  per  cent  of  the 
correct  answers).  "Tell  him  to  ask  some  one  else."  "I  would  not 
express  any  opinion." 

Unsatisfactory.  Unsatisfactory  responses  are  due  either  to  fail- 
ure to  grasp  the  import  of  the  question,  or  to  inability  to  suggest 
the  appropriate  action  demanded  by  the  situation. 

The  latter  form  of  failure  is  the  more  common;  e.g.:  "I'd  say 
they  are  nice."  "Say  you  like  them."  "Say  what  I  think."  "Say 
it's  none  of  their  business."  "Tell  them  I  mind  my  own  business." 
"Say  I  would  get  acquainted  with  them."  "Say  that  I  don't  talk 
about  people."  "Say  I  did  n't  know  how  he  looked."  "Tell  them 
you  ought  not  to  say  such  things;  you  might  get  into  trouble." 
"I  wouldn't  say  anything."  "I  would  try  to  answer."  "Say  I 
did  not  know  his  name,"  etc. 

The  following  are  samples  of  failure  due  to  mistaking  the  im- 
port of  the  question:  "I  'd  say,  'How  do  you  do?'"  "Say,  'I  'm 
glad  to  meet  you.' " 

(6)  Before  undertaking  something  important 

Satisfactory  responses  fall  into  the  f ollowing  classes :  — 

(1)  Brief  statement  of  preliminary  consideration;  as:  "Think 
about  it."  "Look  it  over."  "Plan  it  all  out."  "Make  your 
plans."     "Stop  and  think,"  etc. 

(2)  Special  emphasis  on  preliminary  preparation  and  correct 
procedure;   as:  "Find  out  the  best  way  to  do  it."   "Find 
out  what  it  is."  " Get  everything  ready."  "Do  every  little 
thing  that  would  help  you."  "Get  all  the  details  you  can." 
"Take  your  time  and  figure  it  out,"  etc. 

(3)  Asking  help;  as:  "Ask  some  one  to  help  you  who  knows  all 
about  it."   "Pray,  if  you  are  a  Christian."   "Ask  advice," 
etc. 

(4)  Preliminary  testing  of  ability,  self -analysis,  etc.;  as:  "Try 
something  easier  first."  "  Practice  and  make  sure  I  could  do 
it."   "Learn  how  to  do  it,"  etc. 

(5)  Consider  the  wisdom  or  propriety  of  doing  it:  "Think 
whether  it  would  be  best  to  do  it."   "See  whether  it  would 
be  possible." 

About  65  per  cent  of  the  correct  responses  belong  either  to  group 
(1)  or  (2),  about  20  per  cent  to  group  (3),  and  most  of  the  remain- 
der to  group  (4). 


270      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Unsatisfactory  responses  are  of  the  following  types:  — 

(1)  Due  to  mistaking  the  import  of  the  question;  e.g. :  "Ask  for 
it."  "Ought  to  say  please."   "Ask  whose  it  is."  Replies  of 
this  kind  can  be  nearly  all  eliminated  by  repeating  the  ques- 
tion, using  beginning  instead  of  undertaking. 

(2)  Replies  more  or  less  absurd  or  irrelevant;  as:  "Promise  to 
do  your  best."  "Wash  your  face  and  hands."  "Get  a  lot  of 
insurance."  "Dress  up  and  take  a  walk."  "Tell  your  name." 
"Know  whether  it's  correct."    "Begin  at  the  beginning." 
"Say  you  will  do  it."   "See  if  it's  a  fake."   "Go  to  school  a 
long  time."    "Pass  an  examination."   "Do  what  is  right." 
"Add  up  and  see  how  much  it  will  cost."   "Say  I  would  do 
it."   "Just  start  doing  it."   "Go  away."   "Consult  a  doc- 
tor."  "See  if  you  have  time,"  etc. 

(c)  Why  we  should  judge  a  person  more  by  his  actions  than 
by  his  words 

Satisfactory  responses  fall  into  the  following  classes:  — 

(1)  Words  and  deeds  both  mentioned  and  contrasted  in  relia- 
bility; as:  "Actions  speak  louder  than  words"  (this  in  8  per 
cent  of  successes).   "You  can  tell  more  by  his  actions  than 
by  his  words."    "He  might  talk  nice  and  do  bad  things." 
"Sometimes  people  say  things  and  don't  do  them."    "It's 
not  what  you  say  but  what  you  do  that  counts."   "Talk  is 
cheap;  when  he  does  a  thing  you  can  believe  it."   "People 
don't  do  every  thing  they  say."    "A  man  might  steal  but 
talk  like  a  nice  man."   Over  45  per  cent  of  all  correct  re- 
sponses belong  to  group  (1). 

(2)  Acts  stressed  without  mention  of  words;  as:  "You  can  tell 
by  his  actions  whether  he  is  good  or  not."   "If  he  acts  nice 
he  is  nice."    "Actions  show  for  themselves."    Group  (2) 
contains  about  25  per  cent  of  the  correct  responses. 

(3)  Emphasis  on  unreliability  of  words;  as:  "You  can't  tell  by 
his  words,  he  might  lie  or  boast."    "Because  you  can't 
always  believe  what  people  say."    (Group  (3)  contains  15 
per  cent  of  the  correct  responses. 

(4)  Responses  which  state  that  a  man's  deeds  are  sometimes 
better  than  his  words;  as:  "He  might  talk  ugly  and  still  not 
do  bad  things."    "Some  really  kind-hearted  people  scold 
and  swear."  "A  man's  words  may  be  worse  than  his  deeds," 


TEST  NO.  X,  5  271 

etc.    Group  (4)  contains  over  10  per  cent  of  the  correct 
responses. 

Unsatisfactory  responses  are  usually  due  to  inability  to  compre- 
hend the  meaning  of  the  question.  If  there  is  complete  lack  of 
comprehension  the  result  is  either  silence  or  a  totally  irrelevant 
response.  If  there  is  partial  comprehension  of  the  question  the 
response  may  be  partially  relevant,  but  fail  to  make  the  expected 
distinction. 

The  following  are  sample  failures:  "You  could  tell  by  his  words 
that  he  was  educated."  "It  shows  he  is  polite  if  he  acts  nice." 
"Sometimes  people  are  n't  polite."  "Actions  show  who  he  might 
be."  "Acts  may  be  foolish."  "Words  ain't  right."  "A  man 
might  be  dumb."  "A  fellow  don't  know  what  he  says."  "Some 
people  can  talk,  but  don't  have  control  of  themselves."  "You  can 
tell  by  his  acts  whether  he  goes  with  bad  people."  "If  he  does  n't 
act  right  you  know  he  won't  talk  right."  "Actions  show  if  he  has 
manners."  "Might  get  embarrassed  and  not  talk  good."  "He 
may  not  know  how  to  express  his  thoughts."  "He  might  be  a  rich 
man  but  a  poor  talker."  "He  might  say  the  wrong  thing  and  after- 
wards be  sorry  for  it,"  etc.  (The  last  four  are  nearer  correct  than 
the  others,  but  they  fall  just  short  of  expressing  the  essential 
contrast.) 

Remarks.  For  discussion  of  the  comprehension  ques- 
tions as  a  test  of  intelligence,  see  page  158. 

Binet  used  eight  questions,  three  "  easy  "  and  five  "  dif- 
ficult," and  required  that  five  out  of  eight  be  answered  cor- 
rectly in  year  X.  The  eight  were  as  follows :  — 

(1)  What  to  do  when  you  have  missed  your  train. 

(2)  When  you  have  been  struck  by  a  playmate,  etc. 

(3)  When  you  have  broken  something,  etc. 

(4)  When  about  to  be  late  for  school. 

(5)  When  about  to  undertake  something  important. 

(6)  Why  excuse  a  bad  act  committed  in  anger  more  readily 
than  a  bad  act  committed  without  anger. 

(7)  What  to  do  if  some  one  asks  your  opinion,  etc. 

(8)  Why  can  you  judge  a  person  better  by  his  actions,  etc. 

As  we  have  shown,  questions  1,  2,  3,  and  4  are  much  too 
easy  for  year  X.  Question  6  is  hard  enough  for  year  XII. 


272      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

We  have  omitted  it  because  it  was  not  needed  and  is  not 
entirely  satisfactory. 


X,  6.  Naming  sixty  words 

Procedure.  Say :  "  Now,  I  want  to  see  how  many  different 
words  you  can  name  in  three  minutes.  When  I  say  ready, 
you  must  begin  and  name  the  words  as  fast  as  you  can,  and 
I  will  count  them.  Do  you  understand?  Be  sure  to  do  your 
very  best,  and  remember  that  just  any  words  will  do,  like 
'  clouds?  '  dog,'  '  chair,'  '  happy  '  —  Ready;  go  ahead!  " 

The  instructions  may  be  repeated  if  the  subject  does 
not  understand  what  is  wanted.  As  a  rule  the  task  is  com- 
prehended instantly  and  entered  into  with  great  zest. 

Do  not  stare  at  the  child,  and  do  not  say  anything  as  the 
test  proceeds  unless  there  is  a  pause  of  fifteen  seconds. 
In  this  event  say:  "Go  ahead,  as  fast  as  you  can.  Any 
words  will  do."  Repeat  this  urging  after  every  pause  of 
fifteen  seconds. 

Some  subjects,  usually  rather  intelligent  ones,  hit  upon 
the  device  of  counting  or  putting  words  together  in  sen- 
tences. We  then  break  in  with:  "  Counting  (or  sentences, 
as  the  case  may  be)  not  allowed.  You  must  name  separate 
words.  Go  ahead." 

Record  the  individual  words  if  possible,  and  mark  the 
end  of  each  half-minute.  If  the  words  are  named  so  rapidly 
that  they  cannot  be  taken  down,  it  is  easy  to  keep  the  count 
by  making  a  pencil  stroke  for  each  word.  If  the  latter 
method  is  employed,  repeated  words  may  be  indicated  by 
making  a  cross  instead  of  a  single  stroke.  Always  make 
record  of  repetitions. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  sixty  words,  exclusive  of 
repetitions,  are  named  in  three  minutes.  It  is  not  allow- 
able to  accept  twenty  words  in  one  minute  or  forty  words 


TEST  NO.  X,  6  273 

in  two  minutes  as  an  equivalent  of  the  expected  score. 
Only  real  words  are  counted. 

Remarks.  Scoring,  as  we  have  seen,  takes  account  only 
of  the  number  of  words.  It  is  instructive,  however,  to  note 
the  kind  of  words  given.  Some  subjects,  more  often  those 
of  the  8-  or  9-year  intelligence  level,  give  mainly  isolated, 
detached  words.  As  well  stated  by  Binet,  "  Little  children 
exhaust  an  idea  in  naming  it.  They  say,  for  example,  hat, 
and  then  pass  on  to  another  word  without  noticing  that 
hats  differ  in  color,  in  form,  have  various  parts,  different 
uses  and  accessories,  and  that  in  enumerating  all  these  they 
could  find  a  large  number  of  words." 

Others  quickly  take  advantage  of  such  relationships 
and  name  many  parts  of  an  object  before  leaving  it,  or 
name  a  number  of  other  objects  belonging  to  the  same  class. 
Hat,  for  example,  suggests  cap,  hood,  coat,  shirt,  shoes, 
stockings,  etc.  Pencil  suggests  book,  slate,  paper,  desk, 
ink,  map,  school-yard,  teacher,  etc.  Responses  of  this  type 
may  be  made  up  of  ten  or  a  dozen  plainly  distinct  word 
groups. 

Another  type  of  response  consists  in  naming  only  ob- 
jects present,  or  words  which  present  objects  immediately 
suggest.  It  is  unfortunate  that  this  occurs,  since  rooms  in 
which  testing  is  done  vary  so  much  with  respect  to  furnish- 
ings. The  subject  who  chooses  this  method  is  obviously 
handicapped  if  the  room  is  relatively  bare.  One  way  to 
avoid  this  influence  is  to  have  all  subjects  name  the  words 
with  eyes  closed,  but  the  distraction  thus  caused  is  some- 
times rather  disturbing.  It  is  perhaps  best  for  the  present 
to  adhere  to  the  original  procedure,  and  to  follow  the  rule 
of  making  tests  in  a  room  containing  few  furnishings  in 
addition  to  the  necessary  table  and  chairs. 

A  fourth  type  of  response  is  that  including  a  large  pro- 
portion of  unusual  or  abstract  words.  This  is  the  best  of 


274      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

all,  and  is  hardly  ever  found  except  with  subjects  who  are 
above  the  11 -year  intelligence  level. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  a  response  need  not  belong 
entirely  to  any  one  of  the  above  types.  Most  responses,  in 
fact,  are  characterized  by  a  mixture  of  two  or  three  of  the 
types,  one  of  them  perhaps  being  dominant. 

Though  not  without  its  shortcomings,  the  test  is  interest- 
ing and  valuable.  Success  in  it  does  not,  as  one  might  sup- 
pose, depend  solely  upon  the  size  of  the  vocabulary.  Even 
8-year-olds  ordinarily  know  the  meaning  of  more  than  3000 
words,  and  by  10  years  the  vocabulary  usually  exceeds 
5000  words,  or  eighty  times  as  many  as  the  child  is  expected 
to  name  in  three  minutes.  The  main  factors  in  success  are 
two,  (1)  richness  and  variety  of  previously  made  associa- 
tions with  common  words;  and  (2)  the  readiness  of  these 
associations  to  reinstate  themselves.  The  young  or  the  re- 
tarded subject  fishes  in  the  ocean  of  his  vocabulary  with 
a  single  hook,  so  to  speak.  He  brings  up  each  time  only  one 
word.  The  subject  endowed  with  superior  intelligence 
employs  a  net  (the  idea  of  a  class,  for  example)  and  brings 
up  a  half-dozen  words  or  more.  The  latter  accomplishes  a 
greater  amount  and  with  less  effort;  but  it  requires  intelli- 
gence and  will  power  to  avoid  wasting  time  with  detached 
words. 

One  is  again  and  again  astonished  at  the  poverty  of  asso- 
ciations which  this  test  discloses  with  retarded  subjects. 
For  twenty  or  thirty  seconds  such  children  may  be  unable 
to  think  of  a  single  word.  It  would  be  interesting  if  at  such 
periods  we  could  get  a  glimpse  into  the  subject's  conscious- 
ness. There  must  be  some  kind  of  mental  content,  but  it 
seems  too  vague  to  be  crystallized  in  words.  The  ready  asso- 
ciation of  thoughts  with  definite  words  connotes  a  relatively 
high  degree  of  intellectual  advancement.  Language  forms 
are  the  short-hand  of  thought;  without  facile  command  of 


TEST  NO.  X,  6  275 

language,  thinking  is  vague,  clumsy,  and  ineffective.  Con- 
versely, vague  mental  content  entails  language  shortage. 

Occasionally  a  child  of  11-  or  12-  year  intelligence  will 
make  a  poor  showing  in  this  test.  When  this  happens  it  is 
usually  due  either  to  excessive  embarrassment  or  to  a 
strange  persistence  in  running  down  all  the  words  of  a 
given  class  before  launching  out  upon  a  new  series.  Occa- 
sionally, too,  an  intelligent  subject  wastes  time  in  thinking 
up  a  beautiful  list  of  big  or  unusual  words.  As  stated  by 
Bobertag,  success  is  favored  by  a  certain  amount  of  "  in- 
tellectual nonchalance,"  a  willingness  to  ignore  sense  and 
a  readiness  to  break  away  from  a  train  of  associations  as 
soon  as  the  "  point  of  diminishing  returns  "  has  been 
reached.  This  doubtless  explains  why  adults  sometimes 
make  such  a  surprisingly  poor  showing  in  the  test.  They 
have  less  "  intellectual  nonchalance  "  than  children,  are 
less  willing  to  subordinate  such  considerations  as  complete- 
ness and  logical  connection  to  the  demands  of  speed. 
Knollin's  unemployed  men  of  12-  to  13-year  intelligence 
succeeded  no  better  than  school  children  of  the  10-year 
level. 

We  do  not  believe,  however,  that  this  fault  is  serious 
enough  to  warrant  the  elimination  of  the  test.  The  fact  is 
that  in  a  large  majority  of  cases  the  score  which  it  yields 
agrees  fairly  closely  with  the  result  of  the  scale  as  a  whole. 
Subjects  more  than  a  year  or  two  below  the  mental  age  of 
10  years  seldom  succeed.  Those  more  than  a  year  or  two 
above  the  10-year  level  seldom  fail. 

There  is  another  reason  why  the  test  should  be  retained : 
it  often  has  significance  beyond  that  which  appears  in  the 
mere  number  of  words  given.  The  naming  of  unusual  and 
abstract  words  is  an  instance  of  this.  An  unusually  large 
number  of  repetitions  has  symptomatic  significance  in  the 
other  direction.  It  indicates  a  tendency  to  mental  stereo- 


276      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

typy,  so  frequently  encountered  in  testing  the  feeble-minded. 
The  proportion  of  repetitions  made  by  normal  children  of 
the  10-  or  11 -year  intelligence  level  rarely  exceeds  2  or 
3  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  words  named;  those  of 
older  retarded  children  of  the  same  level  occasionally  reach 
6  or  8  per  cent. 

It  is  conceivable,  of  course,  that  a  more  satisfactory 
test  of  this  general  nature  could  be  devised;  such,  for 
example,  as  having  the  subject  name  all  the  words  he  can 
of  a  given  class  (four-footed  animals,  things  to  eat,  articles 
of  household  furniture,  trees,  birds,  etc.).  The  main  ob- 
jection to  this  form  of  the  test  is  that  the  performance 
would  in  all  probability  be  more  influenced  by  environment 
and  formal  instruction  than  is  the  case  with  the  test  of 
naming  sixty  words. 

One  other  matter  remains  to  be  mentioned;  namely,  the 
relative  number  of  words  named  in  the  half -minute  periods. 
As  would  be  expected,  the  rate  of  naming  words  decreases 
as  the  test  proceeds.  In  the  case  of  the  10-year-olds,  we 
find  the  average  number  of  words  for  the  six  successive 
half -minutes  to  be  as  follows :  — 

18,  !<%  10J4  9,  8^,  7. 

Some  subjects  maintain  an  almost  constant  rate  through- 
out the  test,  others  rapidly  exhaust  themselves,  while  a  very 
few  make  a  bad  beginning  and  improve  as  they  go.  As  a 
rule  it  is  only  the  very  intelligent  who  improve  after  the 
first  half-minute.  On  the  other  hand,  mentally  retarded 
subjects  and  very  young  normals  exhaust  themselves  so 
quickly  that  only  a  few  words  are  named  in  the  last  min- 
ute. 

Binet  first  located  this  test  in  year  XI,  but  shifted  it  to 
year  XII  in  1911.  Goddard  and  Kuhlmann  retain  it  in 
year  XI,  though  Goddard's  statistics  suggest  year  X  as  the 


TEST  NO.  X,   ALTERNATIVE  2  277 

proper  location,  and  Kuhlmann's  even  suggest  year  IX. 
Kuhlmann,  however,  accepts  fifty  words  as  satisfactory  in 
case  the  response  contains  a  considerable  proportion  of 
abstract  or  unusual  words.  All  the  American  statistics  ex- 
cept Howe's  agree  in  showing  that  the  test  is  easy  enough 
for  year  X. 


X,  Alternative  test  1 :  repeating  six  digits 

The  digit  series  used  are  3-7-4-8-5-9;  and  5-2-1-7-4-6. 

The  procedure  and  scoring  are  the  same  as  in  VII,  3, 
except  that  only  two  trials  are  given,  one  of  which  must  be 
correct.  The  test  is  somewhat  too  easy  for  year  10  when 
three  trials  are  given. 

The  test  of  repeating  six  digits  did  not  appear  in  the 
Binet  scale  and  seems  not  to  have  been  standardized  until 
inserted  in  the  Stanford  series. 


X,  Alternative  test  2 :  repeating  twenty  to  twenty-two 
syllables 

The  sentences  for  this  year  are:  — 

(a)  "  The  apple  tree  makes  a  cool,  pleasant  shade  on  the  ground 
where  the  children  are  playing" 

(b)  "  It  is  nearly  half -past  one  o'clock;  the  house  is  very  quiet  and 
the  cat  has  gone  to  sleep." 

(c)  "In  summer  the  days  are  very  warm  and  fine;  in  winter  it 
snows  and  I  am  cold" 

Procedure  and  scoring  exactly  as  in  VI,  6. 

Remarks.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  five  years  of 
mental  growth  are  required  to  pass  from  the  ability  to 
repeat  sixteen  or  eighteen  syllables  (year  VI)  to  the  ability 
to  repeat  twenty  or  twenty-two  syllables.  Similarly  in 
memory  for  digits.  Five  digits  are  almost  as  easy  at  year 


278       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

VII  as  six  at  year  X.  Two  explanations  are  available: 
(1)  The  increased  difficulty  may  be  accounted  for  by  a 
relatively  slow  growth  of  memory  power  after  the  age  of 
6  or  7  years;  or  (2)  the  increase  in  difficulty  may  be  real, 
expressing  an  inner  law  as  to  the  behavior  of  the  memory 
span  in  dealing  with  material  of  increasing  length.  Both 
factors  are  probably  involved. 

This  is  another  of  the  Stanford  additions  to  the  scale. 
Average  children  of  10  years  ordinarily  pass  it,  but  older, 
retarded  children  of  10-year  mental  age  make  a  poorer 
showing.  In  the  case  of  mentally  retarded  adults,  especially, 
the  verbal  memory  is  less  exact  than  that  of  school  chil- 
dren of  the  same  mental  age. 

X,  Alternative  test  3:  construction  puzzle  A 
(Healy  and  Fernald) 

Material.  Use  the  form-board  pictured  on  page  279. 
This  may  be  purchased  of  C.  H.  Stoelting  &  Co.,  Chicago, 
Illinois.  A  home-made  one  will  do  as  well  if  care  is  taken 
to  get  the  dimensions  exact.  Quarter-inch  wood  should  be 
used.  The  inside  of  the  frame  should  be  3  X  4  inches, 
and  the  dimensions  of  the  blocks  should  be  as  follows: 
Is/i6  X  3;  1  X  1^;  1  X  2%;  1  X  1^;  1J£  X  2. 

Procedure.  Place  the  frame  on  the  table  before  the  sub- 
ject, the  short  side  nearest  him.  The  blocks  are  placed  in 
an  irregular  position  on  the  side  of  the  frame  away  from 
the  subject.  Take  care  that  the  board  with  the  blocks  in 
place  is  not  exposed  to  view  in  advance  of  the  experiment. 

Say:  "  /  want  you  to  put  these  blocks  in  this  frame  so 
that  all  the  space  will  be  filled  up.  If  you  do  it  rightly  they 
will  all  fit  in  and  there  will  be  no  space  left  over.  Go  ahead." 

Do  not  tell  the  subject  to  see  how  quickly  he  can  do  it. 
Say  nothing  that  would  even  suggest  hurrying,  for  this 


TEST  NO.  X,   ALTERNTIVE  3  279 

i 

tends  to  call  forth  the  trial-and-error  procedure  even  with 
intelligent  subjects. 


Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  child  succeeds  in  fit- 
ting the  blocks  into  place  three  times  in  a  total  time  of 
five  minutes  for  the  three  trials. 


280      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

The  method  of  procedure  is  fully  as  important  as  the 
time,  but  is  not  so  easily  scored  in  quantitative  terms. 
Nevertheless,  the  examiner  should  always  take  observa- 
tions on  the  method  employed,  noting  especially  any  ten- 
dency to  make  and  to  repeat  moves  which  lead  to  obvious 
impossibilities;  i.e.,  moves  which  leave  a  space  obviously 
unfitted  to  any  of  the  remaining  pieces.  Some  subjects  re- 
peat an  absurd  move  many  times  over;  others  make  an 
absurd  move,  but  promptly  correct  it;  others,  and  these 
are  usually  the  bright  ones,  look  far  enough  ahead  to  avoid 
error  altogether. 

Remarks.  This  test  was  devised  by  Professor  Freeman, 
was  adapted  slightly  by  Healy  and  Fernald,  and  was  first 
standardized  by  Dr.  Kuhlmann.  Miss  Gertrude  Hall  has 
also  standardized  it,  but  on  a  different  procedure  from 
that  described  above.1 

The  test  has  a  lower  correlation  with  intelligence  than 
most  of  the  other  tests  of  the  scale.  Many  bright  children 
of  10-year  intelligence  adopt  the  trial-and-error  method  and 
have  little  success,  while  retarded  older  children  of  only 
8-year  intelligence  sometimes  succeed.  Age,  apart  from 
intelligence,  seems  to  play  an  important  part  in  determining 
the  nature  of  the  performance.  A  favorable  feature  of  the 
test,  however,  is  the  fact  that  it  makes  no  demand  on  lan- 
guage ability  and  that  it  brings  into  play  an  aspect  of  in- 
telligence which  is  relatively  neglected  by  the  remainder 
of  the  scale.  For  this  reason  it  is  at  least  worth  keeping  as 
an  alternative  test. 

1  Eugenics  and  Social  Welfare  Bulletin,  No.  5,  The  State  Board  of  Chari- 
ties, Albany,  New  York. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  XII 

XII,  1.  Vocabulary  (forty  definitions,  7200  words) 

Procedure  and  scoring  as  in  previous  vocabulary  tests.1 
In  this  case  forty  words  must  be  denned. 

XII,  2.  Defining  abstract  words 

Procedure.  The  words  to  be  denned  are  pity,  revenge, 
charity,  envy,  and  justice.  The  formula  is,  "  What  is  pity? 
What  do  we  mean  by  pity?  "  and  so  on  with  the  other  words. 
If  the  meaning  of  the  response  is  not  clear,  ask  the  subject 
to  explain  what  he  means.  If  the  definition  is  in  terms  of 
the  word  itself,  as  "  Pity  means  to  pity  someone,"  "  Re- 
venge is  to  take  revenge,"  etc.,  it  is  then  necessary  to  say: 
"  Yes,  but  what  does  it  mean  to  pity  some  one?  "  or,  "  What 
does  it  mean  to  take  revenge?  "  etc.  Only  supplementary 
questions  of  this  kind  are  permissible. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  three  of  the  Jive  words  are 
satisfactorily  defined.  The  definition  need  not  be  strictly 
logical  nor  the  language  elegant.  It  is  sufficient  if  the  defi- 
nition shows  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  known.  Defi- 
nitions which  define  by  means  of  an  illustration  are  ac- 
ceptable. The  following  are  samples  of  satisfactory  and 
unsatisfactory  responses:  — 

1  See  VIII,  6. 


282      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 


(a)  Pity 

Satisfactory.  "To  be  sorry  for  some  one."  " To  feel  compassion." 
"To  have  sympathy  for  a  person."  "To  feel  bad  for  some  one." 
"It  means  you  help  a  person  out  and  don't  like  to  have  him  suffer." 
"To  have  a  feeling  for  people  when  they  are  treated  wrong."  "If 
anybody  gets  hurt  real  bad  you  pity  them."  "It's  when  you  feel 
sorry  for  a  tramp  and  give  him  something  to  eat."  "If  some  one 
is  in  trouble  and  you  know  how  it  feels  to  be  in  that  condition,  you 
pity  him."  "You  see  something  that's  wrong  and  have  your  feel- 
ing aroused." 

Of  130  correct  responses,  85,  or  65  per  cent,  defined  pity  as  "to 
feel  sorry  for  some  one,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  Less  than  10  per 
cent  defined  by  means  of  illustration. 

Unsatisfactory.  " To  think  of  the  poor."  "To  be  good  to  others." 
"To  help."  " It  means  sorrow."  "Mercy."  "To  cheer  people  up." 
"It  means  'What  a  pity!'"  "To  be  ashamed."  "To  be  sick  or 
poor."  "It's  when  you  break  something." 

Apart  from  inability  to  reply,  which  accounts  for  nearly  one 
fourth  of  the  failures,  there  is  no  predominant  type  of  unsatis- 
factory response. 

(b)  Revenge 

Satisfactory.  "To  get  even  with  some  one."  "To  get  back  on 
him."  "To  do  something  to  the  one  who  has  done  something  to 
you."  "To  hurt  them  back."  "To  pay  it  back,"  or  "Do  something 
back."  "To  do  something  mean  in  return."  "To  square  up  with 
a  person."  "When  somebody  slaps  you,  you  slap  back."  "You 
kill  a  person  if  he  does  something  to  you." 

The  expression  "to  get  even"  was  found  in  42  per  cent  of  120 
correct  answers;  "to  pay  it  back,"  or  "To  do  something  back,"  in 
20  per  cent;  "To  get  back  on  him,"  in  17  per  cent.  About  8  per 
cent  were  illustrations. 

Unsatisfactory.  "To  be  mad."  "You  try  to  hurt  them."  "To 
fight."  "You  hate  a  person."  "To  kill  them."  "It  means  hate- 
ful." "To  try  again."  "To  think  evil  of  some  one."  "To  hate 
some  one  who  has  done  you  wrong."  "To  let  a  person  off."  "To 
go  away  from  something." 

Inability  to  reply  accounts  for  a  little  over  40  per  cent  of  the 
failures. 


TEST  NO.   XH,  2  283 

(c)  Charity 

Satisfactory.  "To  give  to  the  poor."  "To  help  those  who  are 
needy."  "It  is  charity  if  you  are  poor  and  somebody  helps  you." 
"To  give  to  somebody  without  pay." 

Of  110  correct  replies,  72  per  cent  were  worded  substantially 
like  the  first  or  second  given  above. 

Unsatisfactory.  "A  person  who  helps  the  poor."  "A  place  where 
poor  people  get  food  and  things."  "It  is  a  good  life."  "To  be 
happy."  "To  be  poor."  "Charity  is  being  treated  good."  "It  is 
to  be  charitable."  "Charity  is  selling  something  that  is  not  worth 
much."  "It  means  to  be  good"  or  "to  be  kind." 

When  the  last  named  response  is  given,  we  should  say:  "Explain 
what  you  mean."  If  this  brings  an  amplification  of  the  response  to 
"It  means  to  do  things  for  the  poor,"  or  the  equivalent,  the  score 
is  plus.  "Charity  means  love"  is  also  minus  if  the  statement  can- 
not be  further  explained  and  is  merely  rote  memory  of  the  passage 
in  the  13th  chapter  of  1st  Corinthians.  Simply  "To  help"  or  "To 
give"  is  unsatisfactory.  Half  of  the  failures  are  due  to  inability  to 
reply. 

(d)  Envy 

Satisfactory.  "You  envy  some  one  who  has  something  you 
want."  "It's  the  way  you  feel  when  you  see  some  one  with  some- 
thing nicer  than  you  have."  "It's  when  a  poor  girl  sees  a  rich  girl 
with  nice  dresses  and  things."  "You  hate  some  one  because 
they've  got  something  you  want."  "Jealousy"  (satisfactory  if 
subject  can  explain  what  jealousy  means;  otherwise  it  is  minus). 
"It's  when  you  see  a  person  better  off  than  you  are." 

Nearly  three  fourths  of  the  correct  responses  say  in  substance, 
"You  envy  a  person  who  has  something  you  want."  Most  of  the 
others  are  concrete  illustrations. 

Unsatisfactory.  "To  hate  some  one,"  or  simply  "To  hate." 
"You  don't  like  'em."  "Bad  feeling  toward  any  one."  "To  be  a 
great  man  or  woman."  "Not  to  be  nice  to  people."  "What  we  do 
to  our  enemies." 

Inability  to  respond  accounts  for  55  per  cent  of  the  failures. 

(e)  Justice 

Satisfactory.  "To  give  people  what  they  deserve."  "It  means 
that  everybody  is  treated  the  same  way,  whether  he  is  rich  or 
poor."  "It's  what  you  get  when  you  go  to  court."  "If  one  does 


284      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

something  and  gets  punished,  that's  justice."  "To  do  the  square 
thing."  "To  give  everybody  his  dues."  "Let  every  one  have 
what's  coming  to  him."  "To  do  the  right  thing  by  any  one." 
"If  two  people  do  the  same  thing  and  they  let  one  go  without  pun- 
ishing, that  is  not  justice." 

Approximately  38  per  cent  of  102  correct  responses  referred  to 
treating  everybody  the  same  way;  25  per  cent  to  "doing  the 
square  thing";  12  per  cent  were  concrete  illustrations;  and  4  per 
cent  were  definitions  of  what  justice  is  not. 

Unsatisfactory.  "It  means  to  have  peace."  "It  is  where  they 
have  court."  "It's  the  Courthouse."  "To  be  honest."  "Where 
one  is  just"  (minus,  unless  further  explained).  "To  do  right" 
(minus,  unless  in  explaining  right  the  subject  gives  a  definition  of 
justice). 

It  is  very  necessary,  in  case  of  such  answers  as  "Justice  is  to 
do  right,"  "To  be  just,"  etc.,  that  the  subject  be  urged  to  explain 
further  what  he  means.  "To  do  right"  includes  nearly  12  per 
cent  of  all  answers,  and  is  given  by  the  very  brightest  children. 
Most  of  these  are  able,  when  urged,  to  complete  the  definition  in  a 
satisfactory  manner. 

Remarks.  The  reader  may  be  surprised  that  the  ability 
to  define  common  abstract  words  should  develop  so  late. 
Most  children  who  have  had  anything  like  ordinary  home 
or  school  environment  have  doubtless  heard  all  of  these 
words  countless  times  before  the  age  of  12  years.  Never- 
theless, the  statistics  from  the  test  show  unmistakably  that 
before  this  age  such  words  have  but  limited  and  vague 
meaning.  Other  vocabulary  studies  confirm  this  fact  so 
completely  that  we  may  say  there  is  hardly  any  trait  in 
which  12-  to  14-  year  intelligence  more  uniformly  excels 
that  of  the  9-  or  10-  year  level. 

This  is  readily  understandable  when  we  consider  the 
nature  of  abstract  meanings  and  the  intellectual  processes 
by  which  we  arrive  at  them.  Unlike  such  words  as  tree, 
house,  etc.,  the  ideas  they  contain  are  not  the  immediate 
result  of  perceptual  processes,  in  which  even  childish  in- 
telligence is  adept,  but  are  a  refined  and  secondary  prod- 


TEST  NO.  XH,  2  285 

uct  of  relationships  between  other  ideas.  They  require  the 
logical  processes  of  comparison,  abstraction,  and  genera- 
lization. One  cannot  see  justice,  for  example,  but  one  is 
often  confronted  with  situations  in  which  justice  or  injus- 
tice is  an  element;  and  given  a  certain  degree  of  abstrac- 
tion and  generalization,  out  of  such  situations  the  idea  of 
justice  will  gradually  be  evolved. 

The  formation  and  use  of  abstract  ideas,  of  one  kind  or 
another,  represent,  par  excellence,  the  "  higher  thought 
processes."  It  is  not  without  significance  that  delinquents 
who  test  near  the  border-line  of  mental  deficiency  show 
such  inferior  ability  in  arriving  at  correct  generalizations 
regarding  matters  of  social  and  moral  relationships.  We 
cannot  expect  a  mind  of  defective  generalizing  ability  to 
form  very  definite  or  correct  notions  about  justice,  law, 
fairness,  ownership  rights,  etc.;  and  if  the  ideas  themselves 
are  not  fairly  clear,  the  rules  of  conduct  based  upon  them 
cannot  make  a  very  powerful  appeal.1 

Binet  used  the  words  charity,  justice,  and  kindness,  and 
required  two  successes.  In  the  1911  revision  he  shifted 
the  test  from  year  XI  to  year  XII,  where  it  more  nearly 
belongs.  Goddard  also  places  it  hi  year  XII  and  uses  Binet's 
words,  translating  bonte,  however,  as  goodness  instead  of 
kindness.  Kuhlmann  retains  the  test  in  year  XI  and  adds 
bravery  and  revenge,  requiring  three  correct  definitions  out 
of  five.  Bobertag  uses  pity,  envy,  and  justice,  requires  two 
correct  definitions,  and  finds  the  test  just  hard  enough  for 
year  XII. 

After  using  the  words  goodness  and  kindness  in  two 
series  of  tests,  we  have  discarded  them  as  objectionable  in 
that  they  give  rise  to  so  many  doubtful  definitions.  Even 
intelligent  children  often  say:  "  Goodness  means  to  do  some- 
thing good,"  "  Kindness  means  to  be  kind  to  some  one," 

1  Sec  also  p.  298 /. 


286      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

etc.  These  definitions  in  a  circle  occur  less  than  hah*  as 
often  with  pity,  revenge,  and  envy,  which  are  also  superior 
to  charity  and  justice  in  this  respect. 

The  relative  difficulty  of  our  five  words  is  indicated  by 
the  order  in  which  we  have  listed  them  in  the  test  (i.e., 
beginning  with  the  easiest  and  ending  with  the  hardest). 
On  the  standard  of  three  correct  definitions,  these  words 
fit  very  accurately  in  year  XII. 

XII,  3.  The  ball-and-field  test  (superior  plan) 

Procedure,  as  in  year  VIII,  test  1. 
Scoring.  Score  3  (or  superior  plan)  is  required  for  pass- 
big  in  year  XII.1 

XII,  4.  Dissected  sentences 
The  following  disarranged  sentences  are  used:  — 
FOR  THE  STARTED  AN  WE  COUNTRY  EARLY  AT  HOUR 
TO  ASKED  PAPER  MY  TEACHER  CORRECT  I  MY 
A  DEFENDS  DOG  GOOD  HIS  BRAVELY  MASTER 

These  should  be  printed  in  type  like  that  used  above. 
The  Stanford  record  booklet  contains  the  sentences  in 
convenient  form. 

It  is  not  permissible  to  substitute  written  words  or  printed 
script,  as  that  would  make  the  test  harder.  All  the  words 
should  be  printed  in  caps  in  order  that  no  clue  shall  be 
given  as  to  the  first  word  in  a  sentence.  For  a  similar  reason 
the  period  is  omitted. 

Procedure.  Say:  "  Here  is  a  sentence  that  has  the  words 
all  mixed  up  so  that  they  don't  make  any  sense.  If  the  words 

1  See  scoring  card. 


TEST  NO.  XH,  4  287 

were  changed  around  in  the  right  order  they  would  make  a 
good  sentence.  Look  carefully  and  see  if  you  can  tell  me  how 
the  sentence  ought  to  read." 

Give  the  sentences  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  listed 
in  the  record  booklet.  Do  not  tell  the  subject  to  see  how 
quickly  he  can  do  it,  because  with  this  test  any  suggestion 
of  hurrying  is  likely  to  produce  a  kind  of  mental  paralysis. 
If  the  subject  has  no  success  with  the  first  sentence  in  one 
minute,  read  it  off  correctly  for  him,  somewhat  slowly,  and 
pointing  to  each  word  as  it  is  spoken.  Then  proceed  to  the 
second  and  third,  allowing  one  minute  for  each. 

Give  no  further  help.  It  is  not  permissible,  in  case  an  in- 
correct response  is  given,  to  ask  the  subject  to  try  again, 
or  to  say:  "  Are  you  sure  that  is  right?  "  "Are  you  sure  you 
have  not  left  out  any  words?  "  etc.  Instead,  maintain  ab- 
solute silence.  However,  the  subject  is  permitted  to  make 
as  many  changes  in  his  response  as  he  sees  fit,  provided  he 
makes  them  spontaneously  and  within  the  allotted  time. 
Record  the  entire  response. 

Once  in  a  great  while  the  subject  misunderstands  the 
task  and  thinks  the  only  requirement  is  to  use  all  the 
words  given,  and  that  it  is  permitted  to  add  as  many  other 
words  as  he  likes.  It  is  then  necessary  to  repeat  the  in- 
structions and  to  allow  a  new  trial. 

Scoring.  Two  sentences  out  of  three  must  be  correctly 
given  within  the  minute  allotted  to  each.  It  is  understood, 
of  course,  that  if  the  first  sentence  has  to  be  read  for  the 
subject,  both  the  other  responses  must  be  given  correctly. 

A  sentence  is  not  counted  correct  if  a  single  word  is 
omitted,  altered,  or  inserted,  or  if  the  order  given  fails  to 
make  perfect  sense. 

Certain  responses  are  not  absolutely  incorrect,  but  are 
objectionable  as  regards  sentence  structure,  or  else  fail  to 
give  the  exact  meaning  intended.  These  are  given  half 


288  '  THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

credit.  Full  credit  on  one,  and  half  credit  on  each  of  the 
other  two,  is  satisfactory.  The  following  are  samples  of 
satisfactory  and  unsatisfactory  responses:  — 

(a) 

Satisfactory. 

"We  started  for  the  country  at  an  early  hour." 
"At  an  early  hour  we  started  for  the  country." 
"We  started  at  an  early  hour  for  the  country. 

Unsatisfactory. 

"We  started  early  at  an  hour  for  the  country." 
"Early  at  an  hour  we  started  for  the  country." 
"We  started  early  for  the  country." 

Half  credit. 

"For  the  country  at  an  early  hour  we  started." 
"For  the  country  we  started  at  an  early  hour." 

(b) 

Satisfactory. 
"I  asked  my  teacher  to  correct  my  paper." 

Unsatisfactory. 

"My  teacher  asked  to  correct  my  paper." 
"To  correct  my  paper  I  asked  my  teacher." 

Half  credit. 
"My  teacher  I  asked  to  correct  my  paper." 

(c) 

Satisfactory. 

"A  good  dog  defends  his  master  bravely." 
"A  good  dog  bravely  defends  his  master." 

Unsatisfactory. 

"A  dog  defends  his  master  bravely." 
"A  bravely  dog  defends  his  master." 
"A  good  dog  defends  his  bravely  master."    ) 
"A  good  brave  dog  defends  his  master." 

Half  credit. 

"A  dog  defends  his  good  master  bravely." 
"A  dog  bravely  defends  his  good  master." 
"A  good  master  bravely  defends  his  dog." 


TEST  NO.  XH,  4  289 

Remarks.  This  is  an  excellent  test.  It  involves  no  knowl- 
edge which  may  not  be  presupposed  at  the  age  in  which 
it  is  given,  and  success  therefore  depends  very  little  on 
experience.  The  worst  that  can  be  urged  against  it  is  that 
it  may  possibly  be  influenced  to  a  certain  extent  by  the 
amount  of  reading  the  subject  has  done.  But  this  has  not 
been  demonstrated.  At  any  rate,  the  test  satisfies  the  most 
important  requirement  of  a  test  of  intelligence;  namely, 
the  percentage  of  successes  increases  rapidly  and  steadily 
from  the  lower  to  the  higher  levels  of  mental  age. 

This  experiment  can  be  regarded  as  a  variation  of  the 
completion  test.  Binet  tells  us,  hi  fact,  that  it  was  directly 
suggested  by  the  experiment  of  Ebbinghaus.  As  will 
readily  be  observed,  however,  it  differs  to  a  certain  extent 
from  the  Ebbinghaus  completion  test.  Ebbinghaus  omits 
parts  of  a  sentence  and  requires  the  subject  to  supply  the 
omissions.  In  this  test  we  give  all  the  parts  and  require  the 
formation  of  a  sentence  by  rearrangement.  The  two  experi- 
ments are  psychologically  similar  in  that  they  require  the 
subject  to  relate  given  fragments  into  a  meaningful  whole. 
Success  depends  upon  the  ability  of  intelligence  to  utilize 
hints,  or  clues,  and  this  in  turn  depends  on  the  logical 
integrity  of  the  associative  processes.  All  but  the  highest 
grade  of  the  feeble-minded  fail  with  this  test. 

This  test  is  found  in  year  XI  of  Binet's  1908  series  and 
in  year  XII  of  his  1911  revision.  Goddard  and  Kuhlmann 
retain  it  in  the  original  location.  That  it  is  better  placed 
in  year  XII  is  indicated  by  all  the  available  statistics  with 
normal  children,  except  those  of  Goddard.  With  this  ex- 
ception, the  results  of  various  investigators  for  year  XII 
are  in  remarkably  close  agreement,  as  the  following  figures 
will  show:  — 


290      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Per  cent  passing  at  year  XII 

Binet  .....................  66 

Kuhlmann      ..................  68 

Bobertag    ...................  78 

Dougherty     ..................  64 

Strong     ....................  72 

Leviste  and  Morle    ...............  70 

Stanford  series  (1911)  ..............  62 

Stanford  series  (1913)  ..............  57 

Stanford  series  (1914)  ..............  62 

Princeton  data  .................  61 

This  agreement  is  noteworthy  considering  that  no  two 
experiments  seem  to  have  used  exactly  the  same  arrange- 
ment of  words,  and  that  some  have  presented  the  words  of 
a  sentence  in  a  single  line,  others  in  two  or  three  lines.  A 
single  line  would  appear  to  be  somewhat  easier. 


,  5.  Interpretation  of  fables  (score  4) 
The  following  fables  are  used  :  — 

(a)  Hercules  and  the  Wagoner 

A  man  was  driving  along  a  country  road,  when  the  wheels  suddenly 
sank  in  a  deep  rut.  The  man  did  nothing  but  look  at  the  wagon  and 
call  loudly  to  Hercules  to  come  and  help  him.  Hercules  came  up, 
looked  at  the  man,  and  said:  "Put  your  shoulder  to  the  wheel,  my  man, 
and  whip  up  your  oxen."  Then  he  went  away  and  left  the  driver. 

(b)  The  Milkmaid  and  her  Plans 

A  milkmaid  was  carrying  her  pail  of  milk  on  her  head,  and  was 
thinking  to  herself  thus:  "  The  money  for  this  milk  will  buy  4  hens; 
the  hens  will  lay  at  least  '100  eggs;  the  eggs  will  produce  at  least  75 
chicks;  and  with  the  money  which  the  chicks  will  bring  I  can  buy  a  new 
dress  to  wear  instead  of  the  ragged  one  I  have  on."  At  this  moment  she 
looked  down  at  herself,  trying  to  think  how  she  would  look  in  her  new 
dress;  but  as  she  did  so  the  pail  of  milk  slipped  from  her  head  and 
dashed  upon  the  ground.  Thus  all  her  imaginary  schemes  perished  in 
a  moment. 


TEST  NO.  XII,  5  291 

(c)  The  Fox  and  the  Crow 

A  crow,  having  stolen  a  bit  of  meat,  pcrclied  in  a  tree  and  held  it  in 
her  beak.  A  fox,  seeing  her,  wished  to  secure  the  meat,  and  spoke  to  the 
crow  thus:  "How  handsome  you  are!  and  I  have  heard  that  the  beauty 
of  your  voice  is  equal  to  that  of  your  form  and  feathers.  Will  you  not 
sing  for  me,  so  that  I  may  judge  whether  this  is  true  ?  "  The  crow  was 
so  pleased  that  she  opened  her  mouth  to  sing  and  dropped  the  meat, 
which  the  fox  immediately  ate. 

.     (d)  The  Farmer  and  the  Stork 

A  farmer  set  some  traps  to  catch  cranes  which  had  been  eating  his 
seed.  With  them  he  caught  a  stork.  The  stork,  which  had  not  really 
been  stealing,  begged  the  farmer  to  spare  his  life,  saying  that  he  was  a 
bird  of  excellent  character,  that  he  was  not  at  all  like  the  cranes,  and 
that  the  farmer  should  have  pity  on  him.  But  the  farmer  said:  "I  have 
caught  you  with  these  robbers,  and  you  will  have  to  die  with  them." 

(e)  The  Miller,  His  Son,  and  the  Donkey 

A  miller  and  his  son  were  driving  their  donkey  to  a  neighboring 
town  to  sell  him.  They  had  not  gone  far  when  a  child  saw  them  and 
cried  out:  "  What  fools  those  fellows  are  to  be  trudging  along  on  foot 
when  one  of  them  might  be  riding."  The  old  man,  hearing  this,  made 
his  son  get  on  the  donkey,  while  he  himself  walked.  Soon,  they  came 
upon  some  men.  "Look,"  said  one  of  them,  "see  that  lazy  boy  riding 
while  his  old  father  has  to  walk."  On  hearing  this,  the  miller  made  his 
son  get  off,  and  he  climbed  on  the  donkey  himself.  Farther  on  they  met 
a  company  of  women,  who  shouted  out:  "  Why,  you  lazy  old  fellow,  to 
ride  along  so  comfortably  while  your  poor  boy  there  can  hardly  keep 
pace  by  the  side  of  you  !"  And  so  the  good-natured  miller  took  his  boy 
up  behind  him  and  both  of  them  rode.  As  they  came  to  the  town  a  citi- 
zen said  to  them,  "  Why,  you  cruel  fellows !  You  two  arc  better  able  to 
carry  the  poor  little  donkey  than  he  is  to  carry  you."  "  Very  well,"  said 
the  miller,  "we  will  try."  So  both  of  them  jumped  to  the  ground,  got 
some  ropes,  tied  the  donkey's  legs  to  a  pole  and  tried  to  carry  him. 
But  as  they  crossed  the  bridge  the  donkey  became  frightened,  kicked 
hose  and  fell  into  the  stream. 

Procedure.  Present  the  fables  in  the  order  in  which  they 
are  given  above.  The  method  is  to  say  to  the  subject: 


292      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

"  You  know  what  a  fable  is  ?  You  have  heard  fables  ?  " 
Whatever  the  answer,  proceed  to  explain  a  fable  as  fol- 
lows: "  A  fable,  you  know,  is  a  little  story,  and  is  meant  to 
teach  us  a  lesson.  Now,  I  am  going  to  read  a  fable  to  you. 
Listen  carefully,  and  when  I  am  through  I  will  ask  you  to 
tell  me  what  lesson  the  fable  teaches  us.  Ready;  listen." 
After  reading  the  fable,  say:  "  What  lesson  does  that  teach 
us?  "  Record  the  response  verbatim  and  proceed  with  the 
next  as  follows:  "Here  is  another.  Listen  -again  and  tell 
me  what  lesson  this  fable  teaches  us,"  etc. 

As  far  as  possible,  avoid  comment  or  commendation  until 
all  the  fables  have  been  given.  If  the  first  answer  is  of  an 
inferior  type  and  we  express  too  much  satisfaction  with  it, 
we  thereby  encourage  the  subject  to  continue  in  his  error. 
On  the  other  hand,  never  express  dissatisfaction  with  a 
response,  however  absurd  or  malapropos  it  may  be.  Many 
subjects  are  anxious  to  know  how  well  they  are  doing  and 
continually  ask,  "  Did  I  get  that  one  right  ?  "  It  is  sufficient 
to  say,  "  You  are  getting  along  nicely,"  or  something  to 
that  effect.  Offer  no  comments,' suggestions,  or  questions 
which  might  put  the  subject  on  the  right  track.  This  much 
self-control  is  necessary  if  we  would  make  the  conditions 
of  the  test  uniform  for  all  subjects. 

The  only  occasion  when  a  supplementary  question  is 
permissible  is  in  case  of  a  response  whose  meaning  is  not 
clear.  Even  then  we  must  be  cautious  and  restrict  ourselves 
to  some  such  question  as,  "  What  do  you  mean?  "  or,  "  Ex- 
plain; I  don't  quite  understand  what  you  mean."  The  scor- 
ing of  fables  is  somewhat  difficult  at  best,  and  this  addi- 
tional question  is  often  sufficient  to  place  the  response  very 
definitely  in  the  right  or  wrong  column. 

Scoring.  Give  score  2,  i.e.,  2  points,  for  a  correct  answer, 
and  1  for  an  answer  which  deserves  half  credit.  The  test 
is  passed  in  year  XII  if  4  points  are  earned;  that  is,  if  two 


TEST  NO.   XH,  5  293 

responses  are  correct  or  if  one  is  correct  and  two  deserve 
half  credit. 

Score  2  means  that  the  fable  has  been  correctly  inter- 
preted and  that  the  lesson  it  teaches  has  been  stated  in 
general  terms. 

There  are  two  types  of  response  which  may  be  given  hah* 
credit.  They  include  (1)  the  interpretations  which  are 
stated  in  general  terms  and  are  fairly  plausible,  but  are 
not  exactly  correct;  and  (2)  those  which  are  perfectly  correct 
as  to  substance,  but  are  not  generalized. 

We  overlook  ordinary  faults  of  expression  and  regard 
merely  the  essential  meaning  of  the  response. 

The  only  way  to  explain  the  method  is  by  giving  copious 
illustrations.  If  the  following  sample  responses  are  carefully 
studied,  a  reasonable  degree  of  expertness  in  scoring  fables 
may  be  acquired  with  only  a  limited  amount  of  actual 
practice.  The  sampling  may  appear  to  the  reader  needlessly 
prolix,  but  experience  has  taught  us  that  in  giving  direc- 
tions for  the  scoring  of  tests  error  always  lies  on  the  side  of 
taking  too  much  for  granted. 

(a)  Hercules  and  the  Wagoner 

Full  credit;  scare  2.  "God  helps  those  who  help  themselves." 
"Do  not  depend  on  others."  "Help  yourself  before  calling  for 
help."  "It  teaches  that  we  should  rely  upon  ourselves." 

The  following  are  not  quite  so  good,  but  are  nevertheless  con- 
sidered satisfactory:  "We  should  always  try,  even  if  it  looks  hard 
and  we  think  we  can't  do  it."  "When  in  trouble  try  to  get  out  of 
it  yourself."  "We've  got  to  do  things  without  help."  "Not  to  be 
lazy." 

Half  credit;  score  1.  This  is  most  often  given  for  the  response 
which  contains  the  correct  idea,  but  states  it  in  terms  of  the  con- 
crete situation,  e.g.:  "The  man  ought  to  have  tried  himself  first." 
"Hercules  wanted  to  teach  the  man  to  help  himself."  "The 
driver  was  too  much  inclined  to  depend  on  others."  "The  man 
was  too  lazy.  He  should  not  have  called  for  help  until  he  had 


294       THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

tried  to  get  out  by  himself."     "To  get  out  and  try  instead  of 
watching." 

Unsatisfactory;  score  0.    Failures  are  mainly  of  five  varieties: 

(1)  generalized   interpretations  which  entirely  miss  the  point; 

(2)  crude  interpretations  which  not  only  miss  the  point,  but  are 
also  stated  in  terms  of  the  concrete  situation;  (3)  irrelevant  or 
incoherent  remarks;  (4)  efforts  to  repeat  the  story;  and  (5)  in- 
ability to  respond. 

Sample  failures  of  type  (1),  entirely  incorrect  generalizations: 
"Teaches  us  to  look  where  we  are  going."  "Not  to  ask  for  any- 
thing when  there  is  no  one  to  help."  "To  help  those  who  are  in 
trouble."  "Teaches  us  to  be  polite."  "How  to  help  others." 
"Not  to  be  cruel  to  horses."  "Always  to  do  what  people  tell  you" 
(or  "obey  orders,"  etc.).  "Not  to  be  foolish"  (or  stupid,  etc.). 
"If  you  would  have  a  thing  well  done,  do  it  yourself." 

Failures  of  type  (2),  crude  interpretations  stated  in  concrete 
terms:  "How  to  get  out  of  the  mud."  "Not  to  get  stuck  in  the 
mud."  "To  carry  a  stick  along  to  pry  yourself  out  if  you  get  into 
a  mud-hole."  "To  help  any  one  who  is  stuck  in  the  mud." 
"Taught  Hercules  to  help  the  horses  along  and  not  whip  them  too 
hard."  "Not  to  be  mean  like  Hercules." 

Failures  of  type  (8),  irrelevant  responses:  "It  was  foolish  not  to 
thank  him."  "He  should  have  helped  the  driver."  "Hercules  was 
mean."  "If  any  one  helps  himself  the  horses  will  try."  "The 
driver  should  have  done  what  Hercules  told  him."  "He  wanted 
the  man  to  help  the  oxen." 

Type  (4) :  Efforts  to  repeat  the  story. 

Type  (5) :  Inability  to  respond. 

(b)  The  Maid  and  the  Eggs 

Full  credit;  score  2.  "Teaches  us  not  to  build  air-castles." 
"Don't  count  your  chickens  before  they  are  hatched."  "Not  to 
plan  too  far  ahead."  Slightly  inferior,  but  still  acceptable:  "Never 
make  too  many  plans."  "Don't  count  on  the  second  thing  till  you 
have  done  the  first." 

Half  credit;  score  1.  "It  teaches  us  not  to  have  our  minds  on 
the  future  when  we  carry  milk  on  the  head."  "  She  was  building  air- 
castles  and  so  lost  her  milk."  "She  was  planning  too  far  ahead." 

The  responses  just  given  are  examples  of  fairly  correct  inter- 
pretations in  non-generalized  terms.  The  following  are  examples  of 
generalized  interpretations  which  fall  below  the  accuracy  required 


TEST  NO.   Xn,  5  295 

for  full  credit:  "Never  make  plans."  "Not  to  be  too  proud."  "To 
keep  our  mind  on  what  we  are  doing."  "Don't  cross  a  bridge  till 
you  come  to  it."  "Don't  count  your  eggs  before  they  are  hatched." 
"Not  to  be  wanting  things;  learn  to  wait."  "Not  to  imagine;  go 
ahead  and  do  it." 

Unsatisfactory;  score  0.  Type  (1),  entirely  incorrect  generaliza- 
tion :  " That  money  does  not  buy  everything."  " Not  to  be  greedy." 
"Not  to  be  selfish."  "Not  to  waste  things."  "Not  to  take  risks 
like  that."  "Not  to  think  about  clothes."  "Count  your  chickens 
before  they  are  hatched." 

Type  (2),  very  crude  interpretations  stated  in  concrete  terms: 
"Not  to  carry  milk  on  the  head."  "Teaches  her  to  watch  and  not 
throw  down  her  head."  "To  carry  her  head  straight."  "Not  to 
spill  milk."  "To  keep  your  chickens  and  you  will  make  more 
money." 

Type  (3),  irrelevant  responses:  "She  wanted  the  money." 
"Teaches  us  to  read  and  write"  (18-year-old  of  8-year  intelligence). 
"About  a  girl  who  was  selling  some  milk." 

Type  (4),  effort  to  repeat  the  story. 

Type  (5),  inability  to  respond. 

(c)  The  Fox  and  the  Crow 

Full  credit;  score  2.  "Teaches  us  not  to  listen  to  flattery." 
"Don't  let  yourself  be  flattered."  "It  is  not  safe  to  believe  people 
who  flatter  us."  "We  had  better  look  out  for  people  who  brag  on 
us." 

Half  credit;  score  1.  Correct  idea  in  concrete  terms:  "The  crow 
was  so  proud  of  herself  that  she  lost  all  she  had."  "The  crow 
listened  to  flattery  and  got  left."  "Not  to  be  proud  and  let  people 
think  you  can  sing  when  you  can't."  "If  anybody  brags  on  you 
don't  sing  or  do  what  he  tells  you." 

Pertinent  but  somewhat  inferior  generalizations:  "Not  to  be  too 
proud."  "Pride  goes  before  a  fall."  "To  be  on  our  guard  against 
people  who  are  our  enemies."  "Not  to  do  everything  people  tell 
you."  "Don't  trust  every  slick  fellow  you  meet." 

Unsatiifactory;  score  0.  Type  (1) ,  incorrect  generalization :  "  Not 
to  go  with  people  you  don't  know."  "Not  to  be  selfish."  "To 
share  your  food."  "Look  before  you  leap."  "Not  to  listen  to  evil." 
"Not  to  steal."  "Teaches  honesty."  "Not  to  covet."  "Think  for 
yourself."  "Teaches  wisdom."  "Never  listen  to  advice."  "Never 
let  any  one  get  ahead  of  you."  "To  figure  out  what  they  are  going 


296      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

to  do."  "Never  try  to  do  two  things  at  once."  "How  to  get  what 
you  want." 

Type  (2),  very  crude  interpretation  stated  in  terms  of  the  con- 
crete situation:  "Not  to  sing  before  you  eat."  "Not  to  hold  a 
thing  in  your  mouth;  eat  it."  "To  eat  a  thing  before  you  think  of 
your  beauty."  "To  swallow  it  before  you  sing."  "To  be  on  your 
watch  when  you  have  food  in  your  mouth." 

Type  (3),  irrelevant  responses:  "The  fox  was  greedy."  "The 
fox  was  slicker  than  what  the  crow  was."  "The  crow  ought  not  to 
have  opened  her  mouth."  "The  crow  should  just  have  shaken  her 
head."  "It  served  the  crow  right  for  stealing  the  meat."  "The 
fox  wanted  the  meat  and  just  told  the  crow  that  to  get  it."  "Fool- 
ishness." "Guess  that's  where  the  old  fox  got  his  name  —  'Old 
Foxy'  —  Don't  teach  us  anything." 

Type  (4),  efforts  to  repeat  the  story. 

Type  (5),  inability  to  respond. 

(d)  The  Farmer  and  the  Stork 

Full  credit;  score  2.  "You  are  judged  by  the  company  you  keep." 
"Teaches  us  to  keep  out  of  bad  company."  "Birds  of  a  feather 
flock  together."  "If  you  go  with  bad  people  you  are  counted  like 
them."  "We  should  choose  our  friends  carefully."  "Don't  go 
with  bad  people."  "Teaches  us  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  evil." 

Half  credit;  score  1.  "The  stork  should  not  have  been  with  the 
cranes."  "Teaches  him  not  to  go  with  robbers."  "Don't  go  with 
people  who  are  not  of  your  nation."  "Not  to  follow  others." 

Unsatisfactory;  score  0.  Type  (1),  incorrect  generalization:  "Not 

•  to  steal."    "Not  to  tell  lies."    "Not  to  give  excuses."    "A  poor 

!  excuse  is  better  than  none."    "Not  to  trust  what  people  say." 

"Not  to  listen  to  excuses."    "Not  to  harm  animals  that  do  no 

harm."   "To  have  pity  on  others."   "Not  to  be  cruel."   "To  be 

kind  to  birds."    "Not  to  blame  people  for  what  they  don't  do." 

"Teaches  that  those  who  do  good  often  suffer  for  those  who  do 

evil."    "To  tend  to  your  own  business."    "Not  to  meddle  with 

other  people's  things."    "Not  to  trespass  on  people's  property." 

"Not  to  think  you  are  so  nice."  "To  keep  out  of  mischief." 

Type  (2),  very  crude  interpretations  in  concrete  terms:  "Taught 
the  stork  to  look  where  it  stepped  and  not  walk  into  a  trap." 
"Taught  the  stork  to  keep  out  of  the  man's  field."  "Not  to  take 
the  seeds." 

Type  (3),  irrelevant  responses:  "The  farmer  was  right;  storks 


TEST  NO.   XH,   5  297 

do  cat  grain."  "Served  the  stork  right,  he  was  stealing  too."  "He 
should  try  to  help  the  stork  out  of  the  field." 

Type  (4),  efforts  to  repeat  the  story. 

Type  (5),  inability  to  reply. 

(e)  The  Miller,  His  Son,  and  the  Donkey 

Full  credit;  score  2,  "When  you  try  to  please  everybody  you 
please  nobody."  "Don't  listen  to  everybody;  you  can't  please 
them  all."  "Don't  take  every  one's  advice."  "Don't  try  to  do 
what  everybody  tells  you."  "Use  your  own  judgment."  "Have  a 
mind  of  your  own."  "Make  up  your  mind  and  stick  to  it." 
"Don't  be  wishy-washy."  "Have  confidence  in  your  own 
opinions." 

Half  credit;  score  1.  Interpretations  which  are  generalized  but 
somewhat  inferior:  "Never  take  any  one's  advice"  (too  sweeping 
a  conclusion).  "Don't  take  foolish  advice."  "Take  your  own 
advice."  "It  teaches  us  that  people  don't  always  agree." 

Correct  idea  but  not  generalized:  "They  were  fools  to  listen  to 
everybody."  "They  should  have  walked  or  rode  just  as  they 
thought  best,  without  listening  to  other  people." 

Unsatisfactory;  score  0.  Type  (1),  incorrect  generalization:  "To 
do  right."  "To  do  what  people  tell  you."  "To  be  kind  to  old 
people."  "To  be  polite."  "To  serve  others."  "Not  to  be  cruel  to 
animals."  "To  have  sympathy  for  beasts  of  burden."  "To  be 
good-natured."  "Not  to  load  things  on  animals  that  are  small." 
"That  it  is  always  better  to  leave  things  as  they  are."  "That  men 
were  not  made  for  beasts  of  burden." 

Type  (2),  very  crude  interpretations  stated  in  concrete  terms: 
"Not  to  try  to  carry  the  donkey."  "That  walking  is  better  than 
riding."  "The  people  should  have  been  more  polite  to  the  old 
man."  "That  the  father  should  be  allowed  to  ride." 

Type  (3),  irrelevant  responses:  "The  men  were  too  heavy  for 
the  donkey."  "They  ought  to  have  stayed  on  and  they  would  not 
have  fallen  into  the  stream."  "It  teaches  about  a  man  and  he  lost 
his  donkey." 

Type  (4),  efforts  to  repeat  the  story. 

Type  (5),  inability  to  respond. 

Remarks.  The  fable  test,  or  the  "  test  of  generalization," 
as  it  may  aptly  be  named,  was  used  by  the  writer  in  a  study 


298      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

of  the  intellectual  processes  of  bright  and  dull  boys  in  1905,1 
and  was  further  standardized  by  the  writer  and  Mr.  Childs 
in  191 1.2  It  has  proved  its  worth  in  a  number  of  investiga- 
tions. It  has  been  necessary,  however,  to  simplify  the  rather 
elaborate  method  of  scoring  which  was  proposed  in  1911, 
not  because  of  any  logical  fault  of  the  method,  but  because 
of  the  difficulty  in  teaching  examiners  to  use  the  system 
correctly.  The  method  explained  above  is  somewhat  coarser, 
but  it  has  the  advantage  of  being  much  easier  to  learn. 

The  generalization  test  presents  for  interpretation  situa- 
tions which  are  closely  paralleled  in  the  everyday  social 
experience  of  human  beings.  It  tests  the  subject's  ability 
to  understand  motives  underlying  acts  or  attitudes.  It 
gives  a  clue  to  the  status  of  the  social  consciousness. 
This  is  highly  important  in  the  diagnosis  of  the  upper  range 
of  mental  defectiveness.  The  criterion  of  the  subnormal's 
fitness  for  life  outside  an  institution  is  his  ability  to  under- 
stand social  relations  and  to  adjust  himself  to  them.  Fail- 
ure of  a  subnormal  to  meet  this  criterion  may  lead  him  to 
break  common  conventions,  and  to  appear  disrespectful, 
sulky,  stubborn,  or  in  some  other  way  queer  and  exceptional. 
He  is  likely  to  be  misunderstood,  because  he  so  easily  mis- 
understands others.  The  skein  of  human  motives  is  too 
complex  for  his  limited  intelligence  to  untangle. 

Ethnological  studies  have  shown  in  an  interesting  way  the 
social  origin  of  the  moral  judgment.  The  rectitude  of  the 
moral  life,  therefore,  depends  on  the  accuracy  of  the  social 
judgment.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what  propor- 
tion of  offenders  have  transgressed  moral  codes  because  of 
continued  failure  to  grasp  the  essential  lessons  presented  by 
human  situations. 

1  Genius  and  Stupidity,"  in  Pedagogical  Seminary,  vol.  xiu,  pp.  307-73. 

2  "A  Tentative  Revision  and  Extension  of  the  Binet-Simon  Measuring 
Scale  of  Intelligence,"  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  (1912). 


TEST  NO.  XH,  5  299 

For  the  intelligent  child  even  the  common  incidents  of 
life  carry  an  endless  succession  of  lessons  in  right  conduct. 
On  the  average  school  playground  not  an  hour  passes  with- 
out some  happening  which  is  fraught  with  a  moral  hint  to 
those  who  have  intelligence  enough  to  generalize  the  situa- 
tion. A  boy  plays  unfairly  and  is  barred  from  the  game. 
One  bullies  his  weaker  companion  and  arouses  the  anger  and 
scorn  of  all  his  fellows.  Another  vents  his  braggadocio  and 
feels  at  once  the  withering  scorn  of  those  who  listen. 
Laziness,  selfishness,  meanness,  dishonesty,  ingratitude, 
inconstancy,  inordinate  pride,  and  the  countless  other 
faults  all  have  their  social  penalties.  The  child  of  normal 
intelligence  sees  the  point,  draws  the  appropriate  lesson 
and  (provided  emotions  and  will  are  also  normal)  applies 
it  more  or  less  effectively  as  a  guide  to  his  own  conduct. 
To  the  feeble-minded  child,  all  but  lacking  in  the  power  of 
abstraction  and  generalization,  the  situation  conveys  no 
such  lesson.  It  is  but  a  muddle  of  concrete  events  without 
general  significance;  or  even  if  its  meaning  is  vaguely  appre- 
hended, the  powers  of  inhibition  are  insufficient  to  guaran- 
tee that  right  action  will  follow. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  generalization  test  is  so 
valuable  in  the  mental  examinations  of  delinquents.  It 
presents  a  moral  situation,  imagined,  to  be  sure,  but  none 
the  less  real  to  the  individual  of  normal  comprehension. 
It  tells  us  quickly  whether  the  subject  tested  is  able  to 
see  beyond  the  incidents  of  the  given  situation  and  to  grasp 
their  wider  relations  —  whether  he  is  able  to  generalize  the 
concrete. 

The  following  responses  made  by  feeble-minded  delin- 
quents from  16  to  21  years  of  age  demonstrate  sufficiently 
their  inability  to  comprehend  the  moral  situation:  — 

Hercules  and  the  Wagoner.  "Teaches  you  to  look  wheVe  you  are 
going."  "Not  to  help  any  one  who  is  stuck  in  the  niud."  "Not 


300    ;  THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

to  whip  oxen."  "Teaches  that  Hercules  was  mean."  "Teaches 
us  to  carry  a  stick  along  to  pry  the  wheels  out." 

The  Fox  and  the  Crow.  "Not  to  sing  when  eating."  "To  keep 
away  from  strangers."  "To  swallow  it  before  you  sing."  "Not  to 
be  stingy."  "Not  to  listen  to  evil."  "The  fox  was  wiser  than  the 
crow."  "Not  to  be  selfish  with  food."  "Not  to  do  two  things  at 
once."  "To  hang  on  to  what  you've  got." 

The  Farmer  and  the  Stork.  "Teaches  the  stork  to  look  where  he 
steps."  "Not  to  be  cruel  like  the  farmer."  "Not  to  tell  lies."  "Not 
to  butt  into  other  people's  things."  "To  be  kind  to  birds." 
"Teaches  us  how  to  get  rid  of  troublesome  people."  "Never  go 
with  anything  else." 

The  following  are  the  responses  of  an  18-year-old  delin- 
quent (intelligence  level  10  years)  to  the  five  fables:  — 

Maid  and  Eggs.  "She  was  thinking  about  getting  the  dress  and 

spilled  the  milk.   Teaches  selfishness." 

Hercules  and  the  Wagoner.  "He  wanted  to  help  the  oxen  out." 
Fox  and  Crow.    "Guess  that's  where  the  fox  got  his  name  — 

'Old  Foxy.'   Don't  teach  us  anything." 

Farmer  and  Stork.  "Try  and  help  the  stork  out  of  the  field." 
Miller,  Son,  and  Donkey.  "They  was  all  big  fools  and  mean  to 

the  donkey." 

One  does  not  require  very  profound  psychological  in- 
sight to  see  that  a  person  of  this  degree  of  comprehension 
is  not  promising  material  for  moral  education.  His  weak- 
ness in  the  ability  to  generalize  a  moral  situation  is  not  due 
to  lack  of  instruction,  but  is  inherent  in  the  nature  of  his 
mental  processes,  all  of  which  have  the  infantile  quality  of 
average  9-  or  10-year  intelligence.  Well-instructed  normal 
children  of  10  years  ordinarily  succeed  no  better.  The 
ability  to  draw  the  correct  lesson  from  a  social  situation  is 
little  developed  below  the  mental  level  of  12  or  13  years. 

The  test  is  also  valuable  because  it  throws  light  on  the 
subject's  .ability  to  appreciate  the  finer  shades  of  meaning. 
The  mentally  retarded  often  show  marked  inferiority  in  this 


TEST  NO.  XII,  6  301 

respect.  They  sense,  perhaps,  in  a  general  way  the  trend  of 
the  story,  but  they  fail  to  comprehend  much  that  to  us 
seems  clearly  expressed.  They  do  not  get  what  is  left  for 
the  reader  to  infer,  because  they  are  insensible  to  the  thought 
fringes.  It  is  these  which  give  meaning  to  the  fable.  The 
dull  subject  may  be  able  to  image  the  objects  and  activi- 
ties described,  but  taken  in  the  rough  such  imagery  gets 
him  nowhere. 

Finally,  the  test  is  almost  free  from  the  danger  of  coach- 
ing. The  subject  who  has  been  given  a  number  of  fables 
along  with  twenty-five  or  thirty  other  tests  can  as  a  rule 
give  only  hazy  and  inaccurate  testimony  as  to  what  he 
has  been  put  through.  Moreover,  we  have  found  that,  even 
if  a  subject  has  previously  heard  a  fable,  that  fact  does  not 
materially  increase  his  chances  of  giving  a  correct  interpre- 
tation. If  the  situation  depicted  in  the  fable  is  beyond  the 
subject's  power  of  comprehension  even  explicit  instruction 
has  little  effect  upon  the  quality  of  the  response. 

Incidentally,  this  observation  raises  the  question  whether 
the  use  of  proverbs,  mottoes,  fables,  poetry,  etc.,  in  the 
moral  instruction  of  children  may  not  often  be  futile  be- 
cause the  material  is  not  fitted  to  the  child's  power  of  com- 
prehension. Much  of  the  school's  instruction  in  history 
and  literature  has  a  moral  purpose,  but  there  is  reason  to 
suspect  that  in  this  field  schools  often  make  precocious  at- 
tempts in  "  generalizing  "  exercises. 

XII,  6.  Repeating  five  digits  reversed 

The  series  are  3-1-8-7-9;    6-9-4-8-2;    5-2-9-6-1. 
Procedure  and  Scoring.  Exactly  as  in  years  VII  and  IX.1 

1  See  discussion,  p.  207  ff. 


ri  inn  AH  A      Ofl!  I  C^C    I  IRRiR\ 


302      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

XII,  7.  Interpretation  of  pictures 

Procedure.  Use  the  same  pictures  as  in  III,  1,  and  VII, 
2,  and  the  additional  picture  d.  Present  in  the  same  order. 
The  formula  to  begin  with  is  identical  with  that  in  VII. 
2:  "  Tell  me  what  this  picture  is  about.  What  is  this  a  pic- 
ture of?  "  This  formula  is  chosen  because  it  does  not  sug- 
gest specifically  either  description  or  interpretation,  and  is 
therefore  adapted  to  show  the  child's  spontaneous  or  natu- 
ral mode  of  apperception.  However,  in  case,  this  formula 
fails  to  bring  spontaneous  interpretation  for  three  of  the 
four  pictures,  we  then  return  to  those  pictures  on  which 
the  subject  has  failed  and  give  a  second  trial  with  the  for- 
mula: "  Explain  this  picture"  A  good  many  subjects  who 
failed  to  interpret  the  pictures  spontaneously  do  so  with- 
out difficulty  when  the  more  specific  formula  is  used. 

If  the  response  is  so  brief  as  to  be  difficult  to  classify, 
the  subject  should  be  urged  to  amplify  by  some  such  in- 
junction as  "  Go  ahead,"  or  "  Explain  what  you  mean." 

One  more  caution.  It  is  necessary  to  refrain  from  voic- 
ing a  single  word  of  commendation  or  approval  until  all 
the  pictures  have  been  responded  to.  A  moment's  thought 
will  reveal  the  absolute  necessity  of  adhering  to  this  rule. 
Often  a  subject  will  begin  by  giving  an  inferior  type  of 
response  (description,  say)  to  the  first  picture,  but  with  the 
second  picture  adjusts  better  to  the  task  and  responds  satis- 
factorily. If  in  such  a  case  the  first  (unsatisfactory)  re- 
sponse were  greeted  with  an  approving  "  That's  fine,  you 
are  doing  splendidly,"  the  likelihood  of  any  improvement 
taking  place  as  the  test  proceeds  would  be  greatly  lessened. 

Scoring.  Three  pictures  out  of  four  must  be  satisfactorily 
interpreted.  "  Satisfactorily  "  means  that  the  interpreta- 
tion given  should  be  reasonably  plausible;  not  necessarily 
the  exact  one  the  artist  had  in  mind,  yet  not  absurd.  The 


TEST  NO.   XH,  7  303 

following  classified  responses  will  serve  as  a  fairly  secure 
guide  for  scoring:  — 

(a)  Dutch  Home 

Satisfactory.  "Child  has  spilled  something  and  is  getting  a 
scolding."  "The  baby  has  hurt  herself  and  the  mother  is  com- 
forting her."  "The  baby  is  crying  because  she  is  hungry  and  the 
mother  has  nothing  to  give  her."  "The  little  girl  has  been  naughty 
and  is  about  to  be  punished."  "The  baby  is  crying  because  she 
does  not  like  her  dinner."  "There's  bread  on  the  table  and  the 
mother  won't  let  the  little  girl  have  it  and  so  she  is  crying."  "The 
baby  is  begging  for  something  and  is  crying  because  her  mamma 
won't  give  it  to  her."  "It's  a  poor  family.  The  father  is  dead  and 
they  don't  have  enough  to  eat." 

Unsatisfactory.  "The  baby  is  crying  and  the  mother  is  looking 
at  her  "  (description).  "It's  in  Holland,  and  there's  a  little  girl 
crying,  and  a  mamma,  and  there's  a  dish  on  the  table"  (mainly 
description).  "The  mother  is  teaching  the  child  to  walk"  (absurd 
interpretation). 

(6)  River  Scene 

Satisfactory.  "Man  and  lady  eloping  to  get  married  and  an 
Indian  to  row  for  them."  "I  think  it  represents  a  honeymoon 
trip."  "  In  frontier  days  and  a  man  and  his  wife  have  been  captured 
by  the  Indians."  "It's  a  perilous  journey  and  they  have  engaged 
the  Indian  to  row  for  them." 

Unsatisfactory.  "They  are  shooting  the  rapids."  "An  Indian 
rowing  a  man  and  his  wife  down  the  river"  (mainly  description). 
"A  storm  at  sea"  (absurd  interpretation).  "Indians  have  rescued 
a  couple  from  a  shipwreck."  "They  have  been  up  the  river  and 
are  riding  down  the  rapids." 

The  following  responses  are  somewhat  doubtful,  but  should 
probably  be  scored  minus:  "People  going  out  hunting  and  have 
Indian  for  a  guide."  "The  man  has  rescued  the  woman  from  the 
Indians."  "It's  a  camping  trip." 

(c)  Post-Office 

Satisfactory.  "It's  a  lot  of  old  farmers.  They  have  come  to  the 
post-office  to  get  the  paper,  which  only  comes  once  a  week,  and 
they  are  all  happy."  "There's  something  funny  in  the  paper  about 
one  of  the  men  and  they  are  all  laughing  about  it."  "They  are 


304      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

reading  about  the  price  of  eggs,  and  they  look  very  happy  so  I 
guess  the  price  has  gone  up."  "It's  a  bunch  of  country  politicians 
reading  the  election  news." 

Unsatisfactory.  "A  man  has  just  come  out  of  the  post-office 
and  is  reading  to  his  friends."  "It's  a  little  country  town  and  they 
are  looking  at  the  paper."  "A  man  is  reading  the  paper  and  the 
others  are  looking  on  and  laughing."  "Some  men  are  reading  a 
paper  and  laughing,  and  the  other  man  has  brought  some  eggs  to 
market,  and  it's  in  a  little  country  town."  (All  the  above  are 
mainly  description.) 

Responses  like  the  following  are  somewhat  better,  but  hardly 
satisfactory:  "They  are  reading  something  funny  in  the  paper." 
"  They  are  reading  the  ads."  "  They  are  laughing  about  something 
in  the  newspaper,"  etc. 

* 

(d)  Colonial  Home 

Satisfactory.  "They  are  lovers  and  have  quarreled."  "The  man 
has  to  go  away  for  a  long  time,  maybe  to  war,  and  she  is  afraid 
he  won't  return."  "He  has  proposed  and  she  has  rejected  him, 
and  she  is  crying  because  she  hated  to  disappoint  him."  "The 
woman  is  crying  because  her  husband  is  angry  and  leaving 
her."  "The  man  is  a  messenger  and  has  brought  the  woman  bad 
news." 

Unsatisfactory.  "The  husband  is  leaving  and  the  dog  is  looking 
at  the  lady."  "It's  a  picture  to  show  how  people  dressed  in 
colonial  times."  "The  lady  is  crying  and  the  man  is  trying  to 
comfort  her."  "The  man  is  going  away.  The  woman  is  angry 
because  he  is  going.  The  dog  has  a  ball  in  its  mouth  and  looks 
happy,  and  the  man  looks  sad." 

Such  responses  as  the  following  are  doubtful,  but  rather  minus 
than  plus:  "A  picture  of  George  Washington's  home."  "They 
have  lost  their  money  and  they  are  sad"  (gratuitous  interpreta- 
tion). "The  man  has  struck  the  woman." 

Doubt  sometimes  arises  as  to  the  proper  scoring  of  imaginative 
or  gratuitous  interpretations.  The  following  are  samples  of  such: 
(a)  "The  little  girl  is  crying  because  she  wants  a  new  dress  and  the 
mother  is  telling  her  she  can  have  one  when  Christmas  comes  if 
she  will  be  good."  (b)  "The  man  and  woman  have  gone  up  the  river 
to  visit  some  friends  and  an  Indian  guide  is  bringing  them  home." 
(c)  "Some  old  Rubes  are  reading  about  a  circus  that's  going  to 
come."  (d)  "Napoleon  leaving  his  wife." 


TEST  NO.  XII,  7  305 

Sometimes  these  imaginative  responses  are  given  by 
very  bright  subjects,  under  the  impression  that  they  are 
asked  to  "  make  up  "  a  story  based  on  the  picture.  We 
may  score  them  plus,  provided  they  are  not  too  much  out 
of  harmony  with  the  situation  and  actions  represented  in 
the  picture.  Interpretations  so  gratuitous  as  to  have  little 
or  no  bearing  upon  the  scene  depicted  should  be  scored 
minus. 

Remarks.  The  test  of  picture  interpretation  has  been 
variously  located  from  12  to  15  years.  It  cannot  be  too 
strongly  emphasized  that  everything  depends  on  the  na- 
ture of  the  pictures  used,  the  form  in  which  the  question 
is  put,  and  the  standard  for  scoring.  The  Jingleman-Jack 
pictures  used  by  Kuhlmann  are  as  easy  to  interpret  at 
10  years  as  the  Stanford  pictures  at  12.  Spontaneous  in- 
terpretation ("  What  is  this  a  picture  of  ?  "  or  "  What  do 
you  see  in  this  picture?  ")  comes  no  more  readily  at  14 
years  than  provoked  interpretation  ("  Explain  this  pic- 
ture ")  at  12.  The  standard  of  scoring  is  no  less  important. 
If  with  the  Stanford  pictures  we  require  three  satisfactory 
responses  out  of  four,  the  test  belongs  at  the  12-year  level, 
but  the  standard  of  two  correct  out  of  four  can  be  met  a 
year  or  two  earlier. 

Even  after  we  have  agreed  upon  a  given  series  of  pictures, 
the  formula  for  giving  the  test,  and  upon  the  requisite 
number  of  passes,  there  remains  still  the  question  as  to  the 
proper  degree  of  liberality  in  deciding  what  constitutes 
interpretation.  There  is  no  single  point  in  mental  develop- 
ment where  the  "  ability  to  interpret  pictures  "  sweeps 
in  with  a  rush.  Like  the  development  of  most  other  abili- 
ties, it  comes  by  slow  degrees,  beginning  even  as  early  as 
6  years. 

The  question  is,  therefore,  to  decide  whether  a  given  re- 
sponse contains  as  much  and  as  good  interpretation  as 


306      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

we  have  a  right  to  expect  at  the  age  level  where  the  test 
has  been  placed.  It  is  imperative  for  any  one  who  would 
use  the  scale  correctly  to  acquaint  himself  thoroughly 
with  the  procedure  and  standards  described  above. 

XII,  8.  Giving  similarities,  three  things 

Procedure.  The  procedure  is  the  same  as  in  VIII,  4, 
but  with  the  following  words :  — 

(a)  Snake,  cow,  sparrow. 

(b)  Book,  teacher,  newspaper. 

(c)  Wool,  cotton,  leather. 

(d)  Knife-blade,  penny,  piece  of  wire. 

(e)  Rose,  potato,  tree. 

As  before,  a  little  tactful  urging  is  occasionally  neces- 
sary in  order  to  secure  a  response. 

Scoring.  Three  satisfactory  responses  out  of  five  are  neces- 
sary for  success.  Any  real  similarity  is  acceptable,  whether 
fundamental  or  superficial,  although  the  giving  of  fun- 
damental likenesses  is  especially  symptomatic  of  good 
intelligence. 

Failures  may  be  classified  under  four  heads:  (1)  Leaving 
one  of  the  words  out  of  consideration;  (2)  giving  a  difference 
instead  of  a  similarity;  (3)  giving  a  similarity  that  is  not 
real  or  that  is  too  bizarre  or  far-fetched;  and  (4)  inability 
to  respond.  Types  (1),  (3),  and  (4)  are  almost  equally 
numerous,  while  type  (2)  is  not  often  encountered  at  this 
level  of  intelligence. 

This  test  provokes  doubtful  responses  somewhat  oftener 
than  the  earlier  test  of  giving  similarities.  Those  giving 
greatest  difficulty  are  the  indefinite  statements  like  "  All 
are  useful,"  "  All  are  made  of  the  same  material,"  etc. 
Fortunately,  in  most  of  these  cases  an  additional  question 
is  sufficient  to  determine  whether  the  subject  has  in  mind 


TEST  NO.   XH,  8  307 

a  real  similarity.  Questions  suitable  for  this  purpose  are: 
"  Explain  what  you  mean,"  "  In  what  respect  are  they  all 
useful?  "  "  What  material  do  you  mean?  "  etc.  Of  course 
it  is  only  permissible  to  make  use  of  supplementary  ques- 
tions of  this  kind  when  they  are  necessary  in  order  to  clarify 
a  response  which  has  already  been  made. 

While  the  amateur  examiner  is  likely  to  have  more  or 
less  trouble  in  deciding  upon  scores,  this  difficulty  rapidly 
disappears  with  experience.  The  following  samples  of  satis- 
factory and  unsatisfactory  responses  will  serve  as  a  fairly 
adequate  guide  in  dealing  with  doubtful  cases:  — 

(a)  Snake,  cow,  sparrow 

Satisfactory.  "All  are  animals"  (or  creatures,  etc.).  "All  live 
on  the  land."  "All  have  blood"  (or  flesh,  bones,  eyes,  skin,  etc.). 
"All  move  about."  "All  breathe  air."  "All  are  useful"  (plus  only 
if  subject  can  give  a  use  which  they  have  in  common).  "All  have 
a  little  intelligence"  (or  sense,  instinct,  etc.). 

Unsatisfactory.  "All  have  legs."  "All  are  dangerous."  "All 
feed  on  grain"  (or  grass,  etc.).  "All  are  much  afraid  of  man."  "All 
frighten  you."  "All  are  warm-blooded."  "All  get  about  the  same 
way."  "All  walk  on  the  ground."  "All  can  bite."  "All  holler." 
"All  drink  water."  "A  snake  crawls,  a  cow  walks,  and  a  sparrow 
flies"  (or  some  other  difference).  "They  are  not  alike." 

(b)  Book,  teacher,  newspaper 

Satisfactory.  "All  teach."  "You  learn  from  all."  "All  give  you 
information."  "All  help  you  get  an  education."  "All  are  your 
good  friends"  (plus  if  subject  can  explain  how).  "All  are  useful" 
(plus  if  subject  can  explain  how). 

Unsatisfactory.  "All  tell  you  the  news."  "A  teacher  writes, 
and  a  book  and  newspaper  have  writing."  "They  are  not  alike." 
"All  read."  "All  use  the  alphabet." 

(c)  Wool,  cotton,  leather 

Satisfactory.  "All  used  for  clothing."  "We  wear  them  all." 
"All  grow"  (plus  if  subject  can  explain).  "All  have  to  be  sent  to 
the  factory  to  be  made  into  things."  "All  are  useful"  (plus  if 


308      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

subject  can  give  a  use  which  all  have  in  common).   "All  are  valu- 
able" (plus  if  explained). 

Unsatisfactory.  "All  come  from  plants."  "All  grow  on  animals." 
"All  came  off  the  top  of  something."  "All  are  things."  "They  are 
pretty."  "All  spell  alike."  "All  are  furry"  (or  soft,  hard,  etc.). 

(d)  Knife-blade,  penny,  piece  of  wire 

Satisfactory.  "All  are  made  from  minerals"  (or  metals).  "All 
come  from  mines."  "All  are  hard  material." 

Unsatisfactory.  "All  are  made  of  steel"  (or  copper,  iron,  etc.). 
"All  are  made  of  the  same  metal."  "All  cut."  "All  bend  easily." 
"All  are  used  in  building  a  house."  "All  are  worthless."  "All  are 
useful  in  fixing  things."  "All  have  an  end."  "They  are  small." 
"All  weigh  the  same."  "Can  get  them  all  at  a  hardware  store." 
"You  can  buy  things  with  all  of  them."  "You  buy  them  with 
money."  "One  is  sharp,  one  is  round,  and  one  is  long"  (or  some 
other  difference). 

Such  answers  as  "All  are  found  in  a  boy's  pocket,"  or  "Boys 
like  them,"  are  not  altogether  bad,  but  hardly  deserve  to  be  called 
satisfactory.  "All  are  useful"  is  minus  unless  the  subject  can  give 
a  use  which  they  have  in  common,  which  in  this  case  he  is  not 
likely  to  do.  Bizarre  uses  are  also  minus;  as,  "All  are  good  for  a 
watch  fob,"  "Can  use  all  for  paper  weights,"  etc. 

(e)  Rose,  potato,  tree 

Satisfactory.  "All  are  plants."  "All  grow  from  the  ground." 
"All  have  leaves"  (or  roots,  etc.).  "All  have  to  be  planted."  "All 
are  parts  of  nature."  "All  have  colors." 

Unsatisfactory.  "All  are  pretty."  "All  bear  fruit."  "All  have 
pretty  flowers."  "All  grow  on  bushes."  "All  are  valuable"  (or 
useful).  "They  grow  close  to  a  house."  "All  are  ornamental." 
"All  are  shrubbery." 

Remarks.  The  words  of  each  series  lend  themselves  read- 
ily to  classification  into  a  next  higher  class.  This  is  the  best 
type  of  response,  but  with  most  of  the  series  it  accounts  for 
less  than  two  thirds  of  the  successes  among  subjects  of 
12-year  intelligence.  The  proportion  is  less  than  one  third 
for  subjects  of  10-year  intelligence  and  nearly  three  fourths 
at  the  14-year  level.  It  would  be  possible  and  very  desir- 


TEST  NO.   XII,  8  309 

able  to  devise  and  standardize  an  additional  test  of  this 
kind,  but  requiring  the  giving  of  an  essential  resemblance 
or  classificatory  similarity. 

For  discussion  of  the  psychological  factors  involved  in 
the  similarities  test,  see  VIII,  4. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  YEAR  XIV. 

XIV,  '1.  Vocabulary  (fifty  definitions,  9000  words) 

Procedure  and  Scoring,  as  in  VIII,  X,  and  XII.  At 
year  XIV  fifty  words  must  be  correctly  defined. 

XIV,  2.  Induction  test :  finding  a  rule 

Procedure.  Provide  six  sheets  of  thin  blank  paper,  say 
8}^  X  11  inches.  Take  the  first  sheet,  and  telling  the  sub- 
ject to  watch  what  you  do,  fold  it  once,  and  in  the  middle 
of  the  folded  edge  tear  out  or  cut  out  a  small  notch;  then 
ask  the  subject  to  tell  you  how  many  holes  there  will  be  in 
the  paper  when  it  is  unfolded.  The  correct  answer,  one,  is 
nearly  always  given  without  hesitation.  But  whatever  the 
answer,  unfold  the  paper  and  hold  it  up  broadside  for  the 
subject's  inspection.  Next,  take  another  sheet,  fold  it 
once  as  before  and  say:  "Now,  when  we  folded  it  this  way 
and  tore  out  a  piece,  you  remember  it  made  one  hole  in  the 
paper.  This  time  we  will  give  the  paper  another  fold  and 
see  how  many  holes  we  shall  have."  Then  proceed  to  fold 
the  paper  again,  this  time  in  the  other  direction,  and  tear 
out  a  piece  from  the  folded  side  and  ask  how  many  holes 
there  will  be  when  the  paper  is  unfolded.  After  recording  the 
answer,  unfold  the  paper,  hold  it  up  before  the  subject  so 
as  to  let  him  see  the  result.  The  answer  is  often  incorrect 
and  the  unfolded  sheet  is  greeted  with  an  exclamation  of 


TEST  NO.  XIV,  2  311 

surprise.  The  governing  principle  is  seldom  made  out  at 
this  stage  of  the  experiment.  But  regardless  of  the  cor- 
rectness or  incorrectness  of  the  first  and  second  answers, 
proceed  with  the  third  sheet.  Fold  it  once  and  say:  "  When 
we  folded  it  this  way  there  was  one  hole."  Then  fold  it  again 
and  say:  "And  when  we  folded  it  this  way  there  were  two 
holes."  At  this  point  fold  the  paper  a  third  time  and  say: 
"  Now,  I  am  folding  it  again.  How  many  holes  will  it  have 
this  time  when  I  unfold  it?  "  Record  the  answer  and  again 
unfold  the  paper  while  the  subject  looks  on. 

Continue  in  the  same  manner  with  sheets  four,  five,  and 
six,  adding  one  fold  each  time.  In  folding  each  sheet  recap- 
itulate the  results  with  the  previous  sheets,  saying  (with  the 
sixth,  for  example) :  "  When  we  folded  it  this  way  there  was 
one  hole,  when  we  folded  it  again  there  were  two,  when  we 
folded  it  again  there  were  four,  when  we  folded  it  again  there 
were  eight,  when  we  folded  it  again  there  were  sixteen;  now, 
tell  me  how  many  holes  there  will  be  if  we  fold  it  once  more.". 
In  the  recapitulation  avoid  the  expression  "  When  we  folded 
it  once,  twice,  three  times,"  etc.,  as  this  often  leads  the  sub- 
ject to  double  the  numeral  heard  instead  of  doubling  the 
number  of  holes  in  the  previously  folded  sheet.  After  the 
answer  is  given,  do  not  fail  to  unfold  the  paper  and  let  the 
subject  view  the  result. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  rule  is  grasped  by  the 
time  the  sixth  sheet  is  reached;  that  is,  the  subject  may 
pass  after  five  incorrect  responses,  provided  the  sixth  is 
correct  and  the  governing  rule  can  then  be  given.  It  is 
not  permissible  to  ask  for  the  rule  until  all  six  parts  of  the 
experiment  have  been  given.  Nothing  must  be  said  which 
could  even  suggest  the  operation  of  a  rule.  Often,  however, 
the  subject  grasps  the  principle  after  two  or  three  steps  and 
gives  it  spontaneously.  In  this  case  it  is  unnecessary  to 
proceed  with  the  remaining  steps. 


312      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Remarks.  This  test  was  first  used  by  the  writer  in  a 
comparative  study  of  the  intellectual  processes  of  bright 
and  dull  boys  in  1905,  but  it  was  not  standardized  until 
1914.  Rather  extensive  data  indicate  that  it  is  a  genuine 
test  of  intelligence.  Of  14-year-old  school  children  testing 
between  96  and  105  I  Q,  59  per  cent  passed  this  test;  of 
14-year-olds  testing  below  96  I  Q,  41  per  cent  passed; 
of  those  testing  above  105,  71  per  cent  passed.  That  is, 
the  test  agrees  well  with  the  results  obtained  by  the  scale 
as  a  whole.  Of  "  average  adults  "  only  10  per  cent  fail; 
and  of  "  superior  adults,"  fewer  than  5  per  cent.  As  a  rule, 
the  higher  the  grade  of  intelligence,  the  fewer  the  steps 
necessary  for  grasping  the  rule.  Of  the  superior  adults,  only 
35  per  cent  fail  to  get  the  rule  as  early  as  the  end  of  the 
fourth  step. 

The  test  is  little  affected  by  schooling,  and  apart  from 
differences  in  intelligence  it  is  little  influenced  by  age. 
Other  advantages  of  the  test  are  the  keen  interest  it  always 
arouses  and  its  independence  of  language  ability.  It  has 
been  used  successfully  with  immigrant  subjects  who  had 
been  in  this  country  but  a  few  months. 

We  have  named  the  experiment  an  "  induction  test." 
It  might  be  supposed  that  the  solution  would  ordinarily  be 
arrived  at  by  deduction,  or  by  an  a-priori  logical  analysis 
of  the  principle  involved.  This,  however,  is  rarely  the  case. 
Not  one  average  adult  out  of  ten  reasons  out  the  situation 
in  this  purely  logical  manner.  It  is  ordinarily  only  after 
one  or  more  mistakes  have  been  made  and  have  been  ex- 
posed by  the  examiner  holding  up  the  unfolded  paper  to 
view  that  the  correct  principle  is  grasped.  In  the  absence 
of  deductive  reasoning  the  subject  must  note  that  each  un- 
folded sheet  contains  twice  as  many  holes  as  the  previous 
one,  and  must  infer  that  folding  the  paper  again  will 
again  double  the  number.  The  ability  tested  is  the  ability 


TEST  NO.   XIV,  3  313 

to  generalize  from  particulars  where  the  common  element 
of  the  particulars  can  be  discerned  only  by  the  selective 
action  of  attention,  in  this  case  attention  to  the  fact  that 
each  number  is  the  double  of  its  predecessor. 


XIV,  3.  Giving  differences  between  a  president 
and  a  king 

Procedure.  Say:  "  There  are  three  main  differences  be- 
tween a  president  and  a  king;  what  are  they?  "  If  the  subject 
stops  after  one  difference  is  given,  we  urge  him  on,  if  possi- 
ble, until  three  are  given. 

Scoring.  The  three  differences  relate  to  power,  tenure, 
and  manner  of  accession.  Only  these  differences  are  con- 
sidered correct,  and  the  successful  response  must  include 
at  least  two  of  the  three.  We  disregard  crudities  of  expres- 
sion and  note  merely  whether  the  subject  has  the  essential 
idea.  As  regards  power,  for  example,  any  of  the  following 
responses  are  satisfactory:  "  The  king  is  absolute  and  the 
president  is  not."  "  The  king  rules  by  himself,  but  the  presi- 
dent rules  with  the  help  of  the  people."  "  Kings  can  have 
things  their  own  way  more  than  presidents  can,"  etc. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  reverse  of  this  is  sometimes 
true,  that  the  king  of  to-day  often  has  less  power  than  the 
average  president.  Sometimes  subjects  mention  this  fact, 
and  when  they  do  we  credit  them  with  this  part  of  the  test. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  this  answer  is  seldom  given. 

Sometimes  the  subject  does  not  stop  until  he  has  given 
a  half-dozen  or  more  differences,  and  in  such  cases  the 
first  three  differences  may  be  trivial  and  some  of  the  later 
ones  essential.  The  question  then  arises  whether  we  should 
disregard  the  errors  and  pass  the  subject  on  his  later  cor- 
rect responses.  The  rule  in  such  cases  is  to  ask  the  subject 
to  pick  out  the  "  three  main  differences." 


314      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Sometimes  accession  and  tenure  are  given  in  the  form  of  a 
single  contrast,  as:  "  The  president  is  elected,  but  the 
king  inherits  his  throne  and  rules  for  life."  This  answer 
entitles  the  subject  to  credit  for  both  accession  and  tenure, 
the  contrast  as  regards  tenure  being  plainly  implied. 

Unsatisfactory  contrasts  are  of  many  kinds  and  are  often 
amusing.  Some  of  the  most  common  are  the  following:  — 

"A  king  wears  a  crown."  "A  king  has  jewels."  "A  king  sits  on 
a  throne."  ("A  king  sets  on  a  thorn"  as  one  feeble-minded  boy 
put  it!)  "A  king  lives  in  a  palace."  "A  king  has  courtiers."  "A 
king  is  very  dignified."  "A  king  dresses  up  more."  "A  president 
has  less  pomp  and  ceremony."  "A  president  is  more  ready  to  re- 
ceive the  people."  "A  king  sits  on  a  chair  all  the  time  and  a  presi- 
dent does  not."  "No  differences;  it's  just  names."  "A  president 
does  not  give  titles."  "A  king  has  a  larger  salary."  "A  king  has 
royal  blood."  "A  king  is  in  more  danger."  " They  have  a  different 
title."  "A  king  is  more  cruel."  "Kings  have  people  beheaded." 
"A  king  rules  in  a  monarchy  and  a  president  in  a  republic."  "A 
king  rules  in  a  foreign  country."  "A  president  is  elected  and  a 
king  fights  for  his  office."  "A  president  appoints  governors  and  a 
king  does  not."  "A  president  lets  the  lawyers  make  the  laws." 
"Everybody  works  for  a  king." 

It  is  surprising  to  see  how  often  trivial  differences  like 
the  above  are  given.  About  thirty  "  average  adults  "  out 
of  a  hundred,  including  high-school  students,  give  at  least 
one  unsatisfactory  contrast. 

The  test  has  been  criticized  as  depending  too  much  on 
schooling.  The  criticism  is  to  a  certain  extent  valid  when 
the  test  is  used  with  young  subjects,  say  of  10  or  12  years. 
It  is  not  valid,  however,  if  the  use  of  the  test  is  confined  to 
older  subjects.  With  the  latter,  it  is  not  a  test  of  knowledge, 
but  of  the  discriminative  capacity  to  deal  with  knowledge 
already  in  the  possession  of  the  subject.  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  an  adult,  not  actually  feeble-minded,  who  is 
ignorant  of  the  facts  called  for:  That  the  king  inherits  his 


TEST  NO.  XIV,  4  315 

throne,  while  the  president  is  elected;  that  the  tenure  of 
the  king  is  for  life,  and  that  of  the  president  for  a  term  of 
years;  that  kings  ordinarily  have,  or  are  supposed  to  have, 
more  power.  Even  the  relatively  stupid  adult  knows  this; 
but  he  also  knows  that  kings  are  different  from  presidents 
in  having  crowns,  thrones,  palaces,  robes,  courtiers,  larger 
pay,  etc.,  and  he  makes  no  discrimination  as  regards  the 
relative  importance  of  these  differences. 

The  test  is  psychologically  related  to  that  of  giving  dif- 
ferences in  year  VIII  and  to  the  two  tests  of  finding  similari- 
ties; but  it  differs  from  these  in  requiring  a  comparison 
based  on  fundamental  rather  than  accidental  distinctions. 
The  idea  is  good  and  should  be  worked  out  in  additional 
tests  of  the  same  type. 

The  test  first  appeared  in  the  Binet  revised  scale  of  1911. 
Kuhlmann  omits  it,  and  besides  our  own  there  are  few  statis- 
tics bearing  on  it.  Our  results  show  that  if  two  essential 
differences  are  required,  the  test  belongs  where  we  have 
placed  it,  but  that  if  only  one  essential  difference  is  required, 
the  test  is  easy  enough  for  year  XII. 


XIV,  4.  Problem  questions 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  subject:  "  Listen,  and  see  if  you 
can  understand  what  I  read."  Then  read  the  following 
three  problems,  rather  slowly  and  with  expression,  pausing 
after  each  long  enough  for  the  subject  to  find  an  answer:  — 

(a)  A  man  who  was  walking  in  the  woods  near  a  city  stopped  sud- 
denly, very  much  frigfttened,  and  then  ran  to  the  nearest  police- 
man, saying  that  he  had  just  seen  hanging  from  the  limb  of  a 
tree  a  ...  a  what?" 

(b)  "My  neighbor  has  been  having  queer  visitors.   First  a  doctor 
came  to  his  house,  then  a  lawyer,  then  a  minister  (preacher  or 
priest).    What  do  you  think  happened  there?" 


310      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

(c)  "An  Indian  who  had  come  to  town  for  the  first  time  in  his  life 
saw  a  white  man  riding  along  the  street.  As  the  white  man  rode 
by,  the  Indian  said  —  '  The  white  man  is  lazy;  he  walks  sitting 
down.'  What  was  the  white  man  riding  on  that  caused  the 
Indian  to  say,  'He  walks  sitting  down'?" 

Do  not  ask  questions  calculated  to  draw  out  the  correct 
response,  but  wait  in  silence  for  the  subject's  spontaneous 
answer.  It  is  permissible,  however,  to  re-read  the  passage 
if  the  subject  requests  it. 

Scoring.  Two  responses  out  of  three  must  be  satisfactory. 
The  following  explanations  and  examples  will  make  clear 
the  requirements  of  the  test:  — 

(a)  What  the  man  saw  hanging 

Satisfactory.  The  only  correct  answer  for  the  first  is  "A  man 
who  had  hung  himself"  (or  who  had  committed  suicide,  been 
hanged,  etc.).  We  may  also  pass  the  following  answer:  "Dead 
branches  that  looked  like  a  man  hanging." 

A  good  many  subjects  answer  simply,  "A  man."  This  answer 
cannot  be  scored  because  of  the  impossibility  of  knowing  what  is 
in  the  subject's  mind,  and  in  such  cases  it  is  always  necessary  to 
say:  "Explain  what  you  mean."  The  answer  to  this  interrogation 
always  enables  us  to  score  the  response. 

Unsatisfactory.  There  is  an  endless  variety  of  failures:  "A 
snake,"  "A  monkey,"  "A  robber,"  or  "A  tramp"  being  the  most 
common.  Others  include  such  answers  as  "A  bear,"  "A  tiger,"  "A 
wild  cat,"  "A  cat,"  "A  bird,"  "An  eagle,"  "A  bird's  nest,"  "A 
hornet's  nest,"  "A  leaf,"  "A  swing,"  "A  boy  in  a  swing,"  "A  bas- 
ket of  flowers,"  "An  egg,"  "A  ghost,"  "A  white  sheet,"  "Clothes," 
"A  purse,"  etc. 

(b)  My  neighbor 

Satisfactory.  The  expected  answer  is  "A  death,"  "Some  one  has 
died,"  etc.  We  must  always  check  up  this  response,  however,  by 
asking  what  the  lawyer  came  for,  and  this  must  also  be  answered 
correctly. 

While  it  is  expected  that  the  subject  will  understand  that  the 
doctor  came  to  attend  a  sick  person,  the  lawyer  to  make  his  will, 


TEST  NO.  XIV,  4  317 

and  the  minister  to  preach  the  funeral,  there  are  a  few  other  in- 
genious interpretations  which  pass  as  satisfactory.  For  example, 
"A  man  got  hurt  in  an  accident;  the  doctor  came  to  make  him  well, 
the  lawyer  to  see  about  damages,  and  then  he  died  and  the  preacher 
came  for  the  funeral."  Or,  "A  man  died,  the  lawyer  came  to  help 
the  widow  settle  the  estate  and  the  preacher  came  for  the  funeral." 
We  can  hardly  expect  the  14-year-old  child  to  know  that  it  is  not 
the  custom  to  settle  an  estate  until  after  the  funeral. 

The  following  excellent  response  was  given  by  an  enlightened 
young  eugenist:  "A  marriage;  the  doctor  came  to  examine  them 
and  see  if  they  were  fit  to  marry,  the  lawyer  to  arrange  the  mar- 
riage settlement,  and  the  minister  to  marry  them."  The  following 
logical  responses  occurred  once  each:  "A  murder.  The  doctor 
came  to  examine  the  body,  the  lawyer  to  get  evidence,  and  the 
preacher  to  preach  the  funeral."  "An  unmarried  girl  has  given 
birth  to  a  child.  The  lawyer  was  employed  to  get  the  man  to  marry 
her  and  then  the  preacher  came  to  perform  the  wedding  ceremony." 
Perhaps  some  will  consider  this  interpretation  too  far-fetched  to 
pass.  But  it  is  perfectly  logical  and,  unfortunately,  represents  an 
occurrence  which  is  not  so  very  rare. 

If  an  incorrect  answer  is  first  given  and  then  corrected,  the  cor- 
rection is  accepted. 

Unsatisfactory.  The  failures  again  are  quite  varied,  but  are  most 
frequently  due  to  failure  to  understand  the  lawyer's  mission.  Of 
66  tabulated  failures,  26  are  accounted  for  in  this  way,  while  only 
6  are  due  to  inability  to  state  the  part  played  by  the  minister. 
The  most  common  incorrect  responses  are:  "A  baby  born"  (ac- 
counting for  5  out  of  66  failures);  "A  divorce"  (very  common  with 
the  children  tested  by  Dr.  Ordahl,  at  Reno,  Nevada!);  "A  mar- 
riage"; "A  divorce  and  a  remarriage";  "A  dinner";  "An  enter- 
tainment"; "Some  friends  came  to  chat,"  etc.  In  20  failures  out  of 
66,  marriage  was  incorrectly  connected  with  a  will,  a  divorce,  the 
death  of  a  child,  etc. 

The  following  are  not  bad,  but  hardly  deserve  to  pass:  "Sick- 
ness and  trouble;  the  lawyer  and  minister  came  to  help  him  out  of 
trouble."  Or,  "Somebody  was  sick;  the  lawyer  wanted  his  money 
and  the  minister  came  to  see  how  he  was."  A  few  present  a  still 
more  logical  interpretation,  but  so  far-fetched  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  they  should  count  as  passes;  for  example:  "A  man  and 
his  wife  had  a  fight.  One  got  hurt  and  had  to  have  the  doctor,  then 
they  had  a  lawyer  to  get  them  divorced,  theu  the  minister  came  to 


318      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

marry  one  of  them."   Again,  "Some  one  is  dying  and  is  getting 
married  and  making  his  will  before  he  dies." 

(c)  What  the  man  was  riding  on 

The  only  correct  response  is  "Bicycle."  The  most  common 
error  is  horse  (or  donkey),  accounting  for  48  out  of  71  tabulated 
failures.  Vehicles,  like  wagon,  buggy,  automobile,  or  street  car,  were 
mentioned  in  14  out  of  71  failures.  Bizarre  replies  are:  "A  cripple 
in  a  wheel  chair";  "A  person  riding  on  some  one's  back,"  etc. 

Remarks.  The  experiment  is  a  form  of  the  completion 
test.  Elements  of  a  situation  are  given,  out  of  which  the 
entire  situation  is  to  be  constructed.  This  phase  of  intelli- 
gence has  already  been  discussed.1 

While  it  is  generally  admitted  that  the  underlying  idea 
of  this  test  is  good,  some  have  criticized  Binet's  selection 
of  problems.  Meumann  thinks  the  lawyer  element  of  the 
second  is  so  unfamiliar  to  children  as  to  render  that  part 
of  the  test  unfair.  Several  "  armchair  "  critics  have  men- 
tioned the  danger  of  nervous  shock  from  the  first  problem. 
Bobertag  throws  out  the  test  entirely  and  substitutes  a 
completion  test  modeled  after  that  of  Ebbinghaus.  Our 
own  results  are  altogether  favorable  to  the  test.  If  it  is 
used  in  year  XIV,  Meumann's  objection  hardly  holds,  for 
American  children  of  that  age  do  ordinarily  know  some- 
thing about  making  wills.  As  for  the  danger  of  shock  from 
the  first  problem,  we  have  never  once  found  the  slightest 
evidence  of  this  much-feared  result.  The  subject  always 
understands  that  the  situation  depicted  is  hypothetical, 
and  so  answers  either  in  a  matter-of-fact  manner  or  with 
a  laugh. 

The  bicycle  problem  is  our  own  invention.  Binet  used 
the  other  two  and  required  both  to  be  answered  correctly. 
The  test  was  located  in  year  XII  of  the  1908  scale,  and  in 

1  See  IX,  5,  and  XII,  4. 


TEST  NO.   XIV,   5  319 

year  XV  of  the  1911  revision.  Goddard  and  Kuhlmann 
retain  it  in  the  original  location.  The  Stanford  results  of 
1911,  1912,  1914,  and  1915  agree  in  showing  the  test  too 
difficult  for  year  XII,  even  when  only  two  out  of  three  cor- 
rect responses  are  required.  If  the  original  form  of  the  ex- 
periment is  used,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  for  year  XV. 
As  here  given  it  fits  well  at  year  XIV. 


XIV,  5.  Arithmetical  reasoning 

Procedure.  The  following  problems,  printed  in  clear 
type,  are  shown  one  at  a  time  to  the  subject,  who  reads 
each  problem  aloud  and  (with  the  printed  problem  still 
before  him)  finds  the  answer  without  the  use  of  pencil  or 
paper. 

(a)  //  a  man's  salary  is  $20  a  week  and  he  spends  $14  a  week,  how 
long  will  it  take  him  to  save  $300? 

(b)  If  2  pencils  cost  5  cents,  how  many  pencils  can  you  buy  for  50 
cents? 

(c)  At  15  cents  a  yard,  how  much  will  7  feet  of  cloth  cost? 

Only  one  minute  is  allowed  for  each  problem,  but  nothing 
is  said  about  hurrying.  While  one  problem  is  being  solved, 
the  others  should  be  hidden  from  view.  It  is  not  permissible, 
if  the  subject  gives  an  incorrect  answer,  to  ask  him  to  solve 
the  problem  again.  The  following  exception,  however,  is 
made  to  this  rule :  If  the  answer  given  to  the  third  problem 
indicates  that  the  word  yard  has  been  read  as  feet,  the  sub- 
ject is  asked  to  read  the  problem  through  again  carefully 
(aloud)  and  to  tell  how  he  solved  it.  No  further  help  of  any 
kind  may  be  given. 

Scoring.  Two  of  the  three  problems  must  be  solved  cor- 
rectly within  the  minute  allotted  to  each.  No  credit  is 
allowed  for  correct  method  if  the  answer  is  wrong. 


320.      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Remarks.  We  have  selected  these  problems  from  the 
list  used  by  Bonser  in  his  Study  of  the  Reasoning  Ability 
of  Children  in  the  Fourth,  Fifth,  and  Sixth  School  Grades.1 

Our  tests  of  279  "  at  age  "  children  between  12  and  15 
years  reveal  the  surprising  fact  that  the  test  as  here  used 
and  scored  is  not  passed  by  much  over  half  of  the  children 
of  any  age  in  the  grades  below  the  high-school  age.  Of 
the  high-school  pupils  19  per  cent  failed  to  pass,  21  per  cent 
of  ordinarily  successful  business  men  (!),  and  27  per  cent 
of  Knollin's  unemployed  men  testing  up  to  the  "  average 
adult  "  level.  To  find  average  intelligence  cutting  such  a 
sorry  figure  raises  the  question  whether  the  ancient  defini- 
tion of  man  as  "  the  rational  animal  "  is  justified  by  the 
facts.  The  truth  is,  average  intelligence  does  not  do  a  great 
deal  of  abstract,  logical  reasoning,  and  the  little  it  does 
is  done  usually  under  the  whip  of  necessity. 

At  first  thought  these  problems  will  doubtless  appear  to 
the  reader  to  be  mere  tests  of  schooling.  It  is  true,  of  course, 
that  in  solving  them  the  subject  makes  use  of  knowledge 
which  is  ordinarily  obtained  in  school;  but  this  knowledge 
(that  is,  knowledge  of  reading  and  of  addition,  subtraction, 
multiplication,  and  division)  is  possessed  by  practically  all 
adults  who  are  not  feeble-minded,  and  by  many  who  are. 
Success,  therefore,  depends  upon  the  ability  to  apply  this 
knowledge  readily  and  accurately  to  the  problems  given 
—  precisely  the  kind  of  ability  in  which  a  deficiency  cannot 
be  made  good  by  school  training.  We  can  teach  even  morons 
how  to  read  problems  and  how  to  add,  subtract,  multiply, 
and  divide  with  a  fair  degree  of  accuracy;  the  trouble  comes 
when  they  try  to  decide  which  of  these  processes  the  prob- 
lem calls  for.  This  may  require  intelligence  of  high  or  low 
order,  according  to  the  difficulty  of  the  problem.  As  for 
the  present  test,  we  have  shown  that  almost  totally  un- 

1  Columbia  University  Contributions  to  Education,  no.  37,  1910. 


TEST  NO.   XIV,  6  321 

schooled  men  of  "  average  adult  "  intelligence  pass  this 
test  as  frequently  as  high-school  seniors  of  the  same  mental 
level. 

XIV,  6.  Reversing  hands  of  clock 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  subject:  "  Suppose  it  is  six- 
twenty-two  o'clock,  that  is,  twenty-two  minutes  after  six; 
can  you  see  in  your  mind  where  the  large  hand  would  be, 
and  where  the  small  hand  would  be?  "  Subjects  of  12-  to 
14-year  intelligence  practically  always  answer  this  in  the 
affirmative.  Then  continue:  "  Now,  suppose  the  two  hands 
of  the  clock  were  to  trade  places,  so  that  the  large  hand  takes 
the  place  where  the  small  hand  was,  and  the  small  hand  takes 
the  place  where  the  large  hand  was.  What  time  would  it  then 
be?" 

Repeat  the  test  with  the  hands  at  8.10  (10  minutes  after 
8),  and  again  with  the  hands  at  2.46  (14  minutes  before  3). 

The  subject  is  not  allowed  to  look  at  a  clock  or  watch, 
or  to  aid  himself  by  drawing,  but  must  work  out  the  prob- 
lem mentally.  As  a  rule  the  answer  is  given  within  a  few 
seconds  or  not  at  all.  If  an  answer  is  not  forthcoming  within 
two  minutes  the  score  is  failure. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  two  of  the  three  problems 
are  solved  within  the  following  range  of  accuracy:  the  first 
solution  is  considered  correct  if  the  answer  falls  between 
4.30  and  4.35,  inclusive;  the  second  if  the  answer  falls  be- 
tween 1.40  and  1.45,  and  the  third  if  the  answer  falls  be- 
tween 9.10  and  9.15. 

Remarks.  It  appears  that  success  in  the  test  chiefly 
depends  upon  voluntary  control  over  constructive  visual 
imagery.  Weakness  of  visual  imagery  may  account  for  the 
failure  of  a  considerable  percentage  of  adults  to  pass  the 
test.  Visual  imagery,  however,  is  not  absolutely  necessary 
to  success.  One  8-ycar-old  prodigy,  who  had  12-year  in- 


telligence,  arrived  in  forty  seconds  at  a  strictly  mathematical 
solution  for  the  second  problem,  as  follows:  "  If  it  is  2.46, 
and  the  hands  trade  places,  then  the  little  hand  has  gone 
one  fifth  of  the  distance  from  9  o'clock  to  10  o'clock.  One 
fifth  of  60  minutes  is  12  minutes,  and  so  the  time  would  be 
12  minutes  after  9  o'clock."  Such  a  solution  is  certainly 
possible  by  the  use  of  verbal  imagery  of  any  type. 

The  test  shows  a  high  correlation  with  mental  age,  but 
more  than  most  others  it  is  subject  to  the  influence  of  crib- 
bing. For  this  reason,  other  positions  of  the  clock  hands 
should  be  tried  out  for  the  purpose  of  finding  substitute 
experiments  of  equal  difficulty.  Until  such  experiments 
have  been  made,  it  will  be  necessary  to  confine  the  experi- 
ment to  the  three  positions  here  presented. 

Schooling  seems  to  have  no  influence  whatever  on  the 
percentage  of  passes. 

This  test  was  first  used  by  Binet  in  1905,  but  was  not  in- 
cluded in  either  the  1908  or  1911  series.  Goddard  and  Kuhl- 
mann  both  include  the  test  in  their  revisions,  placing  it  in 
year  XV.  They  give  only  two  problems  (our  a  and  c)  and 
require  that  both  be  answered  correctly.  Neither  Goddard 
nor  Kuhlmann,  however,  indicates  the  degree  of  error  per- 
mitted. 

Something  depends  upon  original  position  of  the  hands. 
Binet  used  6.20  and  2.46.  For  some  reason  the  2.46  arrange- 
ment is  much  more  difficult  than  either  8.10  or  6.22,  yield- 
ing almost  twice  as  many  failures  as  either  of  the  other 
positions. 

XIV,  Alternative  tests :  repeating  seven  digits 

This  time,  as  in  year  X,  only  two  series  are  given,  one  of 
which  must  be  repeated  without  error.  The  two  series  are : 
2-1-8-3-4-3-9  and  9-7-2-8-4-7-5.  Note  that  in  none 


TEST  NO.  XIV,  ALTERNATIVE  323 

of  the  tests  of  repeating  digits  is  it  permissible  to  warn  the 
subject  of  the  number  to  be  given. 

Remarks.  Binet  originally  placed  this  test  in  year  XII, 
giving  three  trials,  but  later  moved  it  to  year  XV.  Goddard 
and  Kuhlmann  retain  it  in  year  XII.  Our  data  show  that 
when  three  trials  are  given  the  test  is  too  easy  for  year 
XIV,  but  that  it  fits  this  age  when  only  two  trials  are 
allowed;  that  after  the  age  of  12  or  14  years  memory  for 
relatively  meaningless  material,  like  digits  or  nonsense 
syllables,  improves  but  little;  and  that  above  this  level  it 
does  not  correlate  very  closely  with  intelligence. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  "AVERAGE  ADULT" 

Average  adult,  1 :  vocabulary  (sixty-five  definitions, 
11,700  words) 

Procedure  and  Scoring,  as  in  previous  vocabulary  tests.1 
At  the  average  adult  level  sixty-five  words  should  be  cor- 
rectly defined. 

Average  adult,  2 :  interpretation  of  fables  (score  8) 

Procedure.  As  in  year  XII,  test  6.   Use  the  same  fables. 

Scoring.  The  method  of  scoring  is  the  same  as  for 
XII,  but  the  total  score  must  be  8  points  to  satisfy  the  re- 
quirements at  this  level. 

Remarks.  For  discussion  of  test,  see  XII,  5. 

Average  adult,  3 :  differences  between  abstract  terms 

Procedure.  Say :  What  is  the  difference  between:  — 

(a)  Laziness  and  idleness? 

(b)  Evolution  and  revolution? 

(c)  Poverty  and  misery? 

(d)  Character  and  reputation? 

Scoring.  Three  correct  contrasting  definitions  out  of  four 
are  necessary  for  a  pass.  It  is  not  sufficient  merely  to 
give  a  correct  meaning  for  each  word  of  a  pair;  the  subject 

>  See  VIII,  6. 


AVERAGE  ADULT,  3  325 

must  point  out  a  difference  between  the  two  words  so  as  to 
make  a  real  contrast.  For  example,  if  the  subject  defines 
evolution  as  a  "  growth  "  or  "  gradual  change,"  and  revolu- 
tion as  the  turning  of  a  wheel  on  its  axis,  the  experimenter 
should  say:  "  Yes,  but  I  want  you  to  tell  me  the  difference 
between  evolution  and  revolution."  If  the  contrast  is  not  then 
forthcoming  the  response  is  marked  minus. 

The  following  are  sample  definitions  which  may  be  con- 
sidered acceptable: — 

(a)  Laziness  and  idleness.  "It  is  laziness  if  you  won't  work,  and 
idleness  if  you  are  willing  to  work  but  have  n't  any  job."  "Lots 
of  men  are  idle  who  are  not  lazy  and  would  like  to  work  if  they  had 
something  to  do."  "Laziness  means  you  don't  want  to  work; 
idleness  means  you  are  not  doing  anything  just  now."  "Idle  people 
may  be  lazy,  or  they  may  just  happen  to  be  out  of  a  job."  "It  is 
laziness  when  you  don't  like  to  work,  and  idleness  when  you  are  not 
working."  "An  idle  person  might  be  willing  to  work;  a  lazy  man 
won't  work."  "  Laziness  comes  from  within ;  idleness  may  be  forced 
upon  one."  "Laziness  is  aversion  to  activity;  idleness  is  simply 
the  state  of  inactivity."  "Laziness  is  idleness  from  choice  or  pref- 
erence; idleness  means  doing  nothing." 

The  essential  contrast,  accordingly,  is  that  laziness  refers  to  un- 
loillingness  to  work;  idleness  to  the  mere  fact  of  inactivity.  This  con- 
trast must  be  expressed,  however  clumsily. 

(6)  Evolution  and  revolution.  "Evolution  is  a  gradual  change; 
revolution  is  a  sudden  change."  "Evolution  is  natural  develop- 
ment; revolution  is  sudden  upheaval."  "Evolution  means  an  un- 
folding or  development;  revolution  means  a  complete  upsetting  of 
everything."  "Evolution  is  the  gradual  development  of  a  country 
or  government;  revolution  is  a  quick  change  of  government." 
"Evolution  takes  place  by  natural  force;  a  revolution  is  caused  by 
an  outside  force."  "Evolution  is  growth;  revolution  is  a  quick 
change  from  existing  conditions."  "Evolution  is  a  natural  change; 
revolution  is  a  violent  change."  "Evolution  is  growth  step  by 
step;  revolution  is  more  sudden  and  radical  in  its  action."  "Evo- 
lution is  a  change  brought  about  by  peaceful  development,  while 
revolution  is  brought  about  by  an  uprising." 

The  essential  distinction,  accordingly,  is  that  evolution  means  a 


326      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

gradual,  natural,  or  slow  change,  while  revolution  means  a  sudden, 
forced,  or  violent  change.  Non-contrasting  definitions,  even  when 
the  individual  terms  are  defined  correctly,  are  not  satisfactory. 

(c)  Poverty  and  misery.  "Poverty  is  when  you  are  poor;  misery 
means  suffering."   "Only  the  poor  are  in  poverty,  but  everybody 
can  be  miserable."  "Poverty  is  the  lowest  stage  of  poorness;  misery 
means  pain."    "The  poor  are  not  always  miserable,  and  the  rich 
are  miserable  sometimes."    "Poverty  means  to  be  in  want;  misery 
comes  from  any  kind  of  suffering  or  anguish."    "The  poor  are  in 
poverty;  the  sick  are  in  misery."  "Poverty  is  the  condition  of  being 
very  poor  financially;  misery  is  a  feeling  which  any  class  of  people 
can  have."   "One  who  is  poor  is  in  poverty;  one  who  is  wretched 
or  does  n't  enjoy  life  is  in  misery."   "Poverty  comes  from  lack  of 
money;  misery,  from   lack  of  happiness  or  comfort."    "Misery 
means  distress.  It  can  come  from  poverty  or  many  other  things." 

(d)  Character  and  reputation.  "Character  is  what  you  are;  rep- 
utation is  what  people  say  about  you."   "You  have  character  if 
you  are  honest;  but  you  might  be  honest  and  still  have  a  bad  rep- 
utation among  people  who  misjudge  you."    "Character  is  your 
real  self;  reputation  is  the  opinion  people  have  about  you."  "Your 
character  depends  upon  yourself;  reputation  depends  on  what 
others  think  of  you."   "Character  means  your  real  morals;  repu- 
tation is  the  way  you  are  known  in  the  world."    "A  man  has  a 
good  character  if  he  would  not  do  evil;  but  a  man  may  have  a 
good  reputation  and  still  have  a  bad  character." 

A  little  practice  and  a  good  deal  of  discrimination  are 
necessary  for  the  correct  grading  of  responses  to  this  test. 
Subjects  are  often  so  clumsy  in  expression  that  their  re- 
sponses are  anything  but  clear.  It  is  then  necessary  to  ask 
them  to  explain  what  they  mean.  Further  questioning, 
however,  is  not  permissible.  For  uniformity  in  scoring  it  is 
necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  definitions  given  must, 
in  order  to  be  satisfactory,  express  the  essential  distinction 
between  the  two  words. 

Remarks.  What  we  have  said  regarding  the  psychological 
significance  of  test  2,  year  XII,  applies  equally  well  here. 
The  test  on  the  whole  is  a  valuable  one.  Our  statistics 


AVERAGE  ADULT,  4  327 

show  that  it  is  not,  as  some  critics  have  thought,  mainly  a 
test  of  schooling. 

The  main  criticism  to  be  made  is  that  it  imposes  a  some- 
what difficult  task  upon  the  power  of  language  expression. 
For  this  reason  it  is  necessary  in  scoring  to  disregard  clum- 
siness of  expression  and  to  look  only  to  the  essential  correct- 
ness or  incorrectness  of  the  thought. 

This  test  first  appeared  in  year  XIII  of  Binet's  1908 
scale.  The  terms  used  were  "  happiness  and  honor "; 
"evolution  and  revolution";  "event  and  advent"; 
"poverty  and  misery";  "pride  and  pretension."  In  the 
1911  revision,  "  happiness  and  honor  "  and  "  pride  and  pre- 
tension "  were  dropped,  and  the  other  three  pairs  were 
moved  up  to  the  adult  group,  two  out  of  three  successes 
being  required  for  a  pass.  Kuhlmann  places  it  in  year  XV, 
using  "  happiness  and  honor  "  instead  of  our  "  character 
and  reputation,"  and  requires  three  successes  out  of  five. 

'Average  adult,  4 :  problem  of  the  enclosed  boxes 

Procedure.  Show  the  subject  a  cardboard  box  about  one 
inch  on  a  side.  Say:  "  You  see  this  box;  it  has  two  smaller 
boxes  inside  of  it,  and  each  one  of  the  smaller  boxes  contains 
a  little  tiny  box.  How  many  boxes  are  there  altogether,  count- 
ing the  big  one?  "  To  be  sure  that  the  subject  understands 
repeat  the  statement  of  the  problem:  "  First  the  large  box, 
then  two  smaller  ones,  and  each  of  the  smaller  ones  contains 
a  little  tiny  box" 

Record  the  response,  and,  showing  another  box,  say: 
"  This  box  has  two  smaller  boxes  inside,  and  each  of  the 
smaller  boxes  contains  two  tiny  boxes.  How  many  altogether? 
Remember,  first  the  large  box,  then  two  smaller  ones,  and  each 
smaller  one  contains  two  tiny  boxes." 

The  third  problem,  which  is  given  in  the  same  way, 


328      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

states  that  there  are  three  smaller  boxes,  each  of  which  con- 
tains three  tiny  boxes. 

In  the  fourth  problem  there  are  four  smaller  boxes,  each 
containing  four  tiny  boxes. 

The  problem  must  be  given  orally,  and  the  solution  must 
be  found  without  the  aid  of  pencil  or  paper.  Only  one  half- 
minute  is  allowed  for  each  problem.  Note  that  each  prob- 
lem is  stated  twice. 

A  correction  is  permitted,  provided  it  is  offered  spon- 
taneously and  does  not  seem  to  be  the  result  of  guessing. 
Guessing  can  be  checked  up  by  asking  the  subject  to  ex- 
plain the  solution. 

Scoring.  Three  of  the  four  problems  must  be  solved  cor- 
rectly within  the  half-minute  allotted  to  each. 

Remarks.  Success  depends,  in  the  first  place,  upon  abil- 
ity to  comprehend  the  statement  of  the  problem  and  to 
hold  its  conditions  in  mind.  Subjects  much  below  the 
12-year  level  of  intelligence  are  often  unable  to  do  this. 

Granting  that  the  problem  has  been  comprehended,  suc- 
cess seems  to  depend  chiefly  upon  the  facility  with  which 
the  constructive  imagination  manipulates  concrete  visual 
imagery.  In  this  respect  it  resembles  the  problem  of  revers- 
ing the  hands  of  a  clock.  With  some  subjects,  however, 
verbal  imagery  alone  is  operative.  Tactual  imagery  would, 
of  course,  serve  the  purpose  as  well. 

This  is  as  good  a  place  as  any  to  emphasize  the  fact  that 
the  introspective  study  of  mental  imagery  has  little  to 
contribute  to  the  measurement  of  intelligence.  Intelligence 
tests  are  concerned  with  the  total  result  of  a  thought  process, 
rather  than  with  the  imagery  supports  of  that  process. 
Thought  may  be  carried  on  almost  equally  well  by  various 
kinds  of  imagery.  As  Galton  showed,  a  person  can  be  taught 
to  carry  on  arithmetical  processes  by  the  use  of  smell 
imagery.  The  kind  of  imagery  employed  is  the  product  of 


AVERAGE  ADULT,   5  329 

slight,  innate  preferences  complicated  by  the  more  or  less 
accidental  effects  of  habit. 

We  may  say  that  imagery  is  to  thinking  what  scaffold- 
ing is  to  architecture.  The  important  thing  is  the  com- 
pleted building  rather  than  the  nature  of  the  scaffolding 
employed  in  erecting  it.  No  one  thinks  of  blaming  the  ill 
construction  of  a  building  upon  the  kind  of  scaffolding  used, 
for  if  the  architect  and  builder  are  competent  satisfactory 
scaffolding  will  be  found.  Just  as  little  are  deficiencies  or 
peculiarities  of  imagery  the  real  cause  of  low-order  in- 
telligence. We  cannot  increase  intelligence  by  formal 
drill  in  the  use  of  supposedly  important  kinds  of  mental 
imagery,  any  more  than  we  can  transform  a  plain  carpenter 
into  a  Michael  Angelo  by  instructing  him  in  the  use  of 
scaffolding  materials  such  as  were  employed  in  the  con- 
struction of  St.  Peter's  Cathedral. 

This  test  is  of  our  own  invention  and  has  been  brought  to 
its  present  form  only  after  a  good  deal  of  preliminary  ex- 
perimentation. It  correlates  fairly  well  with  mental  age  as 
determined  by  the  scale  as  a.  whole.  It  was  passed  by  55 
per  cent  of  high-school  pupils  and  by  65  per  cent  of  un- 
schooled business  men.  Success  in  it  is  thus  seen  not  to 
depend  upon  schooling. 

Average  adult,  5 :  repeating  six  digits  reversed 

The  series  used  are:  4-7-1-9-5-2;  5-8-3-2-9-4;  and 
7-5-2-6-3-8. 

Procedure  and  Scoring,  as  in  year  VII,  alternative  2. 

Remarks.  The  test  is  passed  by  approximately  hah*  of 
"  average  adults "  and  by  three  fourths  of  "  superior 
adults."  It  shows  no  effect  of  schooling,  the  uneducated 
business  men  even  surpassing  our  high-school  students. 

For  the  higher  levels  of  intelligence,  especially,  the  test 


830      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

is  superior  to  that  of  repeating  digits  in  the  direct  order. 
It  is  less  mechanical  and  makes  heavier  demands  upon 
higher  intelligence. 


Average  adult,  6 :  using  a  code 

Procedure.  Show  the  subject  the  code  given  on  the 
accompanying  form.  Say:  "  See  these  diagrams  here.  Look 
and  you  will  see  that  they  contain  all  the  letters  of  the  alphabet. 
Now,  examine  the  arrangement  of  the  letters.  They  go  (point- 
ing) a  b  c,  d  e  f,  g  h  i,  j  k  I,  m  n  o,  p  q  r,  s  t  u  v,  w  x  y  z. 
You  see  the  letters  in  the  first  two  diagrams  are  arranged  in 
the  up-and-down  order  (pointing  again),  and  the  letters  in 
the  other  two  diagrams  run  in  just  the  opposite  way  from  the 
hands  of  a  clock  (pointing).  Look  again  and  you  will  see 
that  the  second  diagram  is  drawn  just  like  the  first,  except 
that  each  letter  has  a  dot  with  it,  and  that  the  last  diagram  is 
like  the  third  except  that  here,  also,  each  letter  has  a  dot. 
Now,  all  of  this  represents  a  code;  that  is,  a  secret  language. 
It  is  a  real  code,  one  that  was  used  in  the  Civil  War  for 
sending  secret  messages.  This  is  the  way  it  works:  we  draw 
the  lines  which  hold  a  letter,  but  leave  out  the  letter.  Here,  for 
example,  is  the  way  we  would  write  *  spy?  '  Then  write 
the  word  spy,  pointing  out  carefully  where  each  letter  comes 
from,  and  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  dot  must  be  used  in 
addition  to  the  lines  in  writing  any  letter  in  the  second  or 
the  fourth  diagram.  Illustrate  also  with  war. 

Then  add:  "  /  am  going  to  have  you  write  something  for 
me;  remember  now,  how  the  letters  go,  first  (pointing,  as  before) 
a  b  c,  d  e  f,  g  h  i,  then  j  k  I,  m  n  o,  p  q  r,  then  s  t  uv,  then 
w  x  y  z.  And  don't  forget  the  dots  for  the  letters  in  this  dia- 
gram and  this  one  "  (pointing).  At  this  point,  take  away 
the  diagrams  and  tell  the  subject  to  write  the  words  come 
quickly.  Say  nothing  about  hurrying. 


AVERAGE  ADULT,  6  331 

The  subject  is  given  a  pencil,  but  is  allowed  to  draw  only 
the  symbols  for  the  words  come  quickly.  He  is  not  permitted 
to  reproduce  the  entire  code  and  then  to  copy  the  code  let- 
ters from  his  reproduction. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  words  are  written  in 
six  minutes  and  without  more  than  two  errors.  Omission  of 
a  dot  counts  as  only  a  hah*  error. 

Remarks.  It  is  not  easy  to  analyze  the  mental  functions 
which  contribute  to  success  in  the  code  test.  Contrary  to 
what  might  be  supposed,  success  does  not  necessarily  de- 
pend upon  getting  and  retaining  a  visual  picture  of  the  dia- 
grams. Kinsesthetic  imagery  will  answer  the  purpose  just 
as  well,  or  the  original  visual  impression  may  even  be  trans- 
lated at  once  into  auditory- verbal  imagery  and  remembered 
as  such.  The  significance  of  the  test  must  be  expressed  in 
other  terms  than  the  kind  of  imagery  it  may  happen  to 
bring  into  play. 

Healy  and  Fernald  describe  the  task  of  writing  a  code 
sentence  without  copy  as  one  which  requires  "  close  at- 
tention and  steadiness  of  purpose."  They  also  emphasize 
the  fact  that  the  attention  must  be  directed  inward,  since 
there  is  no  object  of  interest  before  the  senses  and  since  no 
special  stimulus  to  attention  is  offered  by  the  experimenter. 
Observations  we  have  made  on  subjects  during  the  test  con- 
firm this  view  as  to  the  factors  involved. 

That  inability  to  remember  the  code  as  a  whole  is  not  a 
common  cause  of  failure  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  subjects 
above  12-year  intelligence  who  have  failed  on  the  test  are 
nearly  always  able  to  reproduce  the  diagrams  and  insert  the 
letters  in  their  proper  places.  To  give  the  code  form  of  a 
given  letter  without  copy,  however,  makes  a  much  heavier 
demand  on  attention.  Nearly  all  subjects  find  it  necessary 
to  trace  the  code  form,  in  imagination,  from  the  beginning 
up  to  each  letter  whose  code  form  is  sought.  Subjects  of 


332      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

superior  intelligence,  however,  sometimes  hit  upon  the  de- 
vice of  remembering  the  position  of  individual  key  letters 
e.g.  (the  first  letter  of  each  figure)  from  which,  as  a  base,  any 
desired  letter  form  may  be  quickly  sought  out. 

The  test  correlates  well  with  mental  age,  but  for  some 
reason  not  apparent  it  is  passed  by  a  larger  percentage  of 
high-school  pupils  than  unschooled  adults  of  the  same 
mental  level. 

The  code  test  was  first  described  by  Healy  and  Fernald 
in  their  "  Tests  for  Practical  Mental  Classification." 1 
The  authors  gave  no  data,  however,  which  would  indicate 
the  mental  level  to  which  the  test  belongs.  Dr.  Goddard 
incorporated  it  hi  year  XV  of  his  revision  of  the  Binet  scale, 
but  also  fails  to  give  statistics.  The  location  given  the  test 
in  the  Stanford  revision  is  based  on  tests  of  nearly  500 
individuals  ranging  from  a  mental  level  of  12  years  to  that 
of  "  superior  adult."  It  appears  that  the  test  is  considerably 
more  difficult  than  most  had  thought  it  to  be. 

Average  adult,  alternative  test  1:  repeating  twenty-eight 

syllables 

The  sentences  for  this  test  are:  — 

(a)  Walter  likes  very  much  to  go  on  visits  to  his  grandmother,  be- 
cause she  always  tells  him  many  funny  stories. 

(b)  Yesterday  I  saw  a  pretty  little  dog  in  the  street.   It  had  curly 
brown  hair,  short  legs,  and  a  long  tail. 

Procedure.  Exactly  as  in  VI,  6.  Emphasize  that  the 
sentence  must  be  repeated  without  a  single  change  of  any 
sort.  Get  attention  before  giving  each  sentence. 

Scoring.  Passed  if  one  sentence  is  repeated  without  a  single 
error.  In  VI  and  X  we  scored  the  response  as  satisfactory 

1  Psychological  Review  Monographs  (1911),  vol.  xin,  no.  2,  p.  51. 


AVERAGE  ADULT,   ALTERNATIVE  2  333 

if  one  sentence  was  repeated  without  error,  or  if  two  were 
repeated  with  not  more  than  one  error  each. 

Remarks.  The  test  of  repeating  sentences  is  not  as  satis- 
factory in  the  higher  intelligence  levels  as  in  the  lower. 
It  is  too  mechanical  to  tax  very  heavily  the  higher  thought 
processes.  It  does,  however,  have  a  certain  correlation 
with  intelligence.  Contrary  to  what  one  would  have  ex- 
pected, uneducated  adults  of  "  average  adult  "  intelligence 
surpassed  our  high-school  students  of  the  same  mental 
level. 

Binet  located  this  test  in  year  XII  of  the  1908  series,  but 
shifted  it  to  year  XV  in  1911.  The  American  versions  of 
the  Binet  scale  have  usually  retained  it  in  year  XII,  though 
Goddard  admits  that  the  sentences  are  somewhat  too  diffi- 
cult for  that  year.  Kuhlmann  puts  the  test  in  year  XII, 
but  reduces  the  sentences  to  twenty -four  syllables  and  per- 
mits one  re-reading.  We  give  only  two  trials  and  our  sen- 
tences are  considerably  more  difficult.  With  the  procedure 
and  scoring  we  have  used,  the  test  is  rather  easy  for  the 
"  average  adult  "  group,  but  a  little  too  hard  for  year 
XIV. 

Average  adult,  alternative  test  2 :  comprehension  of 
physical  relations 

(a)  Problem  regarding  the  path  of  a  cannon  ball 

Procedure.  Draw  on  a  piece  of  paper  a  horizontal  line 
six  or  eight  inches  long.  Above  it,  an  inch  or  two,  draw  a 
short  horizontal  line  about  an  inch  long  and  parallel  to  the 
first.  Tell  the  subject  that  the  long  line  represents  the  per- 
fectly level  ground  of  a  field,  and  that  the  short  line  repre- 
sents a  cannon.  Explain  that  the  cannon  is  "  pointed 
horizontally  (on  a  level)  and  is  fired  across  this  perfectly  level 
fold."  After  it  is  clear  that  these  conditions  of  the  problem 


334      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

are  comprehended,  we  add:  "Now,  suppose  that  this 
cannon  is  fired  off  and  that  the  ball  comes  to  the  ground  at 
this  point  here  (pointing  to  the  farther  end  of  the  line  which 
represents  the  field).  Take  this  pencil  and  draw  a  line 
which  will  show  what  path  the  cannon  ball  will  take  from  the 
time  it  leaves  the  mouth  of  the  cannon  till  it  strikes  the  ground." 

Scoring.  There  are  four  types  of  response:  (1)  A  straight 
diagonal  line  is  drawn  from  the  cannon's  mouth  to  the  point 
where  the  ball  strikes.  (2)  A  straight  line  is  drawn  from  the 
cannon's  mouth  running  horizontally  until  almost  directly 
over  the  goal,  at  which  point  the  line  drops  almost  or  quite 
vertically.  (3)  The  path  from  the  cannon's  mouth  first 
rises  considerably  from  the  horizontal,  at  an  angle  perhaps 
of  between  ten  to  forty-five  degrees,  and  finally  describes 
a  gradual  curve  downward  to  the  goal.  (4)  The  line  be- 
gins almost  on  a  level  and  drops  more  rapidly  toward  the 
end  of  its  course. 

Only  the  last  is  satisfactory.  Of  course,  nothing  like  a 
mathematically  accurate  solution  of  the  problem  is  expected. 
It  is  sufficient  if  the  response  belongs  to  the  fourth  type 
above  instead  of  being  absurd,  as  the  other  types  described 
are.  Any  one  who  has  ever  thrown  stones  should  have  the 
data  for  such  an  approximate  solution.  Not  a  day  of  school- 
ing is  necessary. 

(6)  Problem  as  to  the  weight  of  a  fish  in  water 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  subject:  "  You  know,  of  course, 
that  water  holds  up  a  fish  that  is  placed  in  it.  Well,  here  is  a 
problem.  Suppose  we  have  a  bucket  which  is  partly  full  of 
water.  We  place  the  bucket  on  the  scales  and  find  that  with 
the  water  in  it  it  weighs  exactly  45  pounds.  Then  we  put  a 
5-pound  fish  into  the  bucket  of  water.  Now,  what  will  the 
whole  thing  weigh?  " 

Scoring.  Many  subjects  even  as  low  as  9-  or  10-  year 


AVERAGE  ADULT,  ALTERNATIVE  2  335 

intelligence  will  answer  promptly,  "  Why,  45  pounds  and 
5  pounds  makes  50  pounds,  of  course."  But  this  is  not  suf- 
ficient. We  proceed  to  ask,  with  serious  demeanor:  "  How 
this  can  be  correct,  since  the  water  itself  holds  up  the  fish?  " 
The  young  subject  who  has  answered  so  glibly  now  laughs 
sheepishly  and  apologizes  for  his  error,  saying  that  he 
answered  without  thinking,  etc.  This  response  is  scored 
failure  without  further  questioning. 

Others  subjects,  mostly  above  the  14-year  level,  adhere 
to  the  answer  "  50  pounds,"  however  strongly  we  urge  the 
argument  about  the  water  holding  up  the  fish.  In  response 
to  our  question,  "  How  can  that  be  the  case?  "  it  is  sufficient 
if  the  subject  replies  that  "  The  weight  is  there  just  the  same; 
the  scales  have  to  hold  up  the  bucket  and  the  bucket  has  to 
hold  up  the  water,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  Only  some  such 
response  as  this  is  satisfactory.  If  the  subject  keeps  chang- 
ing his  answer  or  says  that  he  thinks  the  weight  would  be 
50  pounds,  but  is  not  certain,  the  score  is  failure. 

(c)  Difficulty  of  hitting  a  distant  mark 

Procedure.  Say  to  the  subject:  "  You  know,  do  you  not, 
what  it  means  when  they  say  a  gun  'carries  100  yards'? 
It  means  that  the  bullet  goes  that  far  before  it  drops  to  amount 
to  anything."  All  boys  and  most  girls  more  than  a  dozen 
years  old  understand  this  readily.  If  the  subject  does  not 
understand,  we  explain  again  what  it  means  for  a  gun  "  to 
carry  "  a  given  distance.  When  this  part  is  clear,  we  pro- 
ceed as  follows:  "Now,  suppose  a  man  is  shooting  at  a 
mark  about  the  size  of  a  quart  can.  His  rifle  carries  per- 
fectly more  than  100  yards.  With  such  a  gun  is  it  any  harder 
to  hit  the  mark  at  100  yards  than  it  is  at  50  yards?  "  After 
the  response  is  given,  we  ask  the  subject  to  explain. 

Scoring.  Simply  to  say  that  it  would  be  easier  at  50 
yards  is  not  sufficient,  nor  can  we  pass  the  response  which 


336      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

merely  states  that  it  is  "  easier  to  aim  "  at  50  yards.  The 
correct  principle  must  be  given,  one  which  shows  the  sub- 
ject has  appreciated  the  fact  that  a  small  deviation  from 
the  "  bull's-eye  "  at  50  yards,  due  to  incorrect  aim,  be- 
comes a  larger  deviation  at  100  yards.  However,  the  sub- 
ject is  not  required  to  know  that  the  deviation  at  100  yards 
is  exactly  twice  as  great  as  at  50  yards.  A  certain  amount 
of  questioning  is  often  necessary  before  we  can  decide 
whether  the  subject  has  the  correct  principle  in  mind. 

Scoring  the  entire  test.  Two  of  the  three  problems  must 
be  solved  in  such  a  way  as  to  satisfy  the  requirements 
above  set  forth. 

Remarks.  These  problems  were  devised  by  the  writer. 
They  yield  interesting  results,  when  properly  given,  but 
are  not  without  their  faults.  Sometimes  a  very  superior 
subject  fails,  while  occasionally  an  inferior  subject  unex- 
pectedly succeeds.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  test  corre- 
lates fairly  well  with  mental  age.  At  the  14-year  level  less 
than  50  per  cent  pass;  of  "  average  adults,"  from  60  to 
75  per  cent  are  successful.  Few  "  superior  adults  "  fail. 

The  test  as  here  given  is  little  influenced  by  the  formal 
instruction  given  in  the  grades  or  the  high  school.  In  fact, 
80  per  cent  of  our  uneducated  business  men,  as  contrasted 
with  65  per  cent  of  high-school  juniors  and  seniors,  passed 
the  test.  Success  probably  depends  in  the  main  upon  pre- 
vious interest  in  physical  relationships  and  upon  the  abil- 
ity to  understand  phenomena  of  this  kind  which  the  sub- 
ject has  had  opportunity  to  observe. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  standardize  a  longer  series  of 
problems  designed  to  test  a  subject's  comprehension  of 
common  physical  relationships.  In  the  first  few  months 
of  life  a  normal  child  learns  that  objects  unsupported  fall 
to  the  ground.  Later  he  learns  that  fire  burns;  that  birds 
fly  in  the  air;  that  fish  do  not  sink  in  the  water;  that  water 


AVERAGE  ADULT,  ALTERNATIVE  2     337 

does  not  run  uphill;  that  it  is  easy  to  lift  a  leg  or  arm  as  one 
lies  prone  in  the  water;  that  wind  is  thrown  from  a  rotating 
wheel  (and  always  in  the  same  direction) ;  that  a  stone  which 
is  flying  through  the  air  swiftly  is  more  dangerous  than 
one  which  is  moving  slowly;  that  it  is  more  dangerous  to 
be  run  over  by  a  train  than  by  a  buggy;  that  it  is  hard  to 
run  against  a  strong  wind;  that  cyclones  blow  down  trees 
and  houses;  that  a  rapidly  moving  train  creates  a  stronger 
wind  than  a  slower  train;  that  a  feather  falls  through  the 
air  with  less  speed  than  a  stone;  that  a  falling  object  gains 
momentum;  that  a  heavy  moving  object  is  harder  to  stop 
than  a  light  object  moving  at  the  same  rate;  that  freezing 
water  bursts  pipes;  that  sounds  sometimes  give  echoes; 
that  rainbows  cannot  be  approached;  that  a  lamp  seems 
dim  by  daylight;  that  by  day  the  stars  are  not  visible  and 
the  moon  only  barely  visible;  that  the  headlights  of  an 
approaching  automobile  or  train  are  blinding;  that  if  the 
room  in  which  we  are  reading  is  badly  lighted  we  must  hold 
the  book  nearer  to  the  eyes;  that  running  makes  the  heart 
beat  faster  and  increases  the  rate  of  breathing;  that  if  we 
are  cold  we  can  get  warm  by  running;  that  whirling  rapidly 
makes  us  dizzy;  that  heat  or  exercise  will  cause  perspira- 
tion, etc. 

Although  the  causes  of  some  of  these  phenomena  are  not 
understood  even  by  intelligent  adults  without  some  in- 
struction, the  facts  themselves  are  learned  by  the  normal 
individual  from  his  own  experience.  The  higher  the  mental 
level  and  the  greater  the  curiosity,  the  more  observant  one 
is  about  such  matters  and  the  more  one  learns.  Many 
items  of  knowledge  such  as  we  have  mentioned  could  and 
should  be  standardized  for  various  mental  levels.  In  de- 
vising tests  of  this  kind  we  should,  of  course,  have  to  look 
out  for  the  influences  of  formal  instruction. 


CHAPTER  XX 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  "SUPERIOR  ADULT" 

Superior  adult,  1 :  vocabulary  (seventy-five  definitions, 
13,500  words) 

Procedure  and  Scoring,  as  in  previous  vocabulary  tests. 
At  the  "  superior  adult "  level  seventy-five  words  should 
be  known. 

The  test  is  passed  by  only  one  third  of  those  at  the 
"  average  adult  "  level,  but  by  about  90  per  cent  of  "  su- 
perior adults."  Ability  to  pass  the  test  is  relatively  inde- 
pendent of  the  number  of  years  the  subject  has  attended 
school,  our  business  men  showing  even  a  higher  percentage 
of  passes  than  high-school  pupils. 

Superior  adult,  2 :  Binet's  paper-cutting  test 

Procedure.  Take  a  piece  of  paper  about  six  inches  square 
and  say:  "  Watch  carefully  what  I  do.  See,  I  fold  the  paper 
this  way  (folding  it  once  over  in  the  middle),  then  I  fold  it 
this  way  (folding  it  again  in  the  middle,  but  at  right  angles 
to  the  first  fold).  Now,  I  will  cut  out  a  notch  right  here  " 
(indicating).  At  this  point  take  scissors  and  cut  out  a  small 
notch  from  the  middle  of  the  side  which  presents  but  one 
edge.  Throw  the  fragment  which  has  been  cut  out  into 
the  waste-basket  or  under  the  table.  Leave  the  folded  paper 
exposed  to  view,  but  pressed  flat  against  the  table.  Then 
give  the  subject  a  pencil  and  a  second  sheet  of  paper  like 


SUPERIOR  ADULT,  2  339 

the  one  already  used  and  say:  "Take  this  piece  of  paper 
and  make  a  draining  to  show  how  the  other  sheet  of  paper 
would  look  if  it  were  unfolded.  Draw  lines  to  show  the  creases 
in  the  paper  and  show  what  results  from  the  cutting." 

The  subject  is  not  permitted  to  fold  the  second  sheet, 
but  must  solve  the  problem  by  the  imagination  unaided. 

Note  that  we  do  not  say,  "Draw  the  holes"  as  this  would 
inform  the  subject  that  more  than  one  hole  is  expected. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  creases  in  the  paper  are 
properly  represented,  if  the  holes  are  drawn  in  the  correct 
number,  and  if  they  are  located  correctly,  that  is,  both  on  the 
same  crease  and  each  about  halfway  between  the  center  of 
the  paper  and  the  side.  The  shape  of  the  holes  is  disregarded. 

Failure  may  be  due  to  error  as  regards  the  creases  or 
the  number  and  location  of  the  holes,  or  it  may  involve  any 
combination  of  the  above  errors. 

Remarks.  Success  seems  to  depend  upon  constructive 
visual  imagination.  The  subject  must  first  be  able  to  con- 
struct in  imagination  the  creases  which  result  from  the 
folding,  and  secondly,  to  picture  the  effects  of  the  cutting  as 
regards  number  of  holes  and  their  location.  It  appears  that 
a  solution  is  seldom  arrived  at,  even  in  the  case  of  college 
students,  by  logical  mathematical  thinking.  Our  unschooled 
subjects  even  succeeded  somewhat  better  than  high-school 
and  college  students  of  the  same  mental  level. 

Binet  placed  this  test  in  year  XIII  of  the  1908  scale,  but 
shifted  it  to  the  adult  group  in  the  1911  revision.  Goddard 
retains  it  in  the  adult  group,  while  Kuhlmann  places  it  in 
year  XV.  There  have  also  been  certain  variations  in  the 
procedure  employed.  As  given  in  the  Stanford  revision  the 
test  is  passed  by  hardly  any  subjects  below  the  14-year 
level,  but  by  about  one  third  of  "  average  adults  "  and  by 
the  large  majority  of  "  superior  adults." 


340      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Superior  adult,  3 :  repeating  eight  digits 

Procedure  and  Scoring,  the  same  as  in  previous  tests 
with  digits  reversed.  The  series  used  are:  7-2-5-3-4-8-9-6; 
4-9-8-5-3-7-6-2;  and  8-3-7-9-5^-8-2. 

Guard  against  rhythm  and  grouping  in  reading  the  digits 
and  do  not  give  warning  as  to  the  number  to  be  given. 

The  test  is  passed  by  about  one  third  of  "  average  adults  " 
and  by  over  two  thirds  of  "  superior  adults."  The  test 
shows  no  marked  difference  between  educated  and  unedu- 
cated subjects  of  the  same  mental  level. 

Superior  adult,  4:  repeating  thought  of  passage 

Procedure.  Say:  "  /  am  going  to  read  a  little  selection 
of  about  six  or  eight  lines.  When  I  am  through  I  will  ask 
you  to  repeat  as  much  of  it  as  you  can.  It  does  n't  make  any 
difference  whether  you  remember  the  exact  words  or  not,  but 
you  must  listen  carefully  so  that  you  can  tell  me  everything 
it  says."  Then  read  the  following  selections,  pausing  after 
each  for  the  subject's  report,  which  should  be  recorded 
verbatim :  — 

(a)  "  Tests  such  as  we  are  now  making  are  of  value  both  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  science  and  for  the  information  of  the  person  who 
is  tested.  It  is  important  for  science  to  learn  how  people  differ 
and  on  what  factors  these  differences  depend.  If  we  can  separate 
the  influence  of  heredity  from  the  influence  of  environment,  we 
may  be  able  to  apply  our  knowledge  so  as  to  guide  human  de- 
velopment.  We  may  thus  in  some  cases  correct  defects  and  de- 
velop abilities  which  we  might  otherwise  neglect." 

(b)  "  Many  opinions  have  been  given  on  the  value  of  life.  Some  call 
it  good,  others  call  it  bad.  It  would  be  nearer  correct  to  say  that 
it  is  mediocre;  for  on  the  one  hand,  our  happiness  is  never  as 
great  as  we  should  like,  and  on  the  other  hand,  our  misfortunes 
are  never  as  great  as  our  enemies  would  wish  for  us.    It  is  this 
mediocrity  of  life  which  prevents  it  from  being  radically  unjust." 


SUPERIOR  ADULT,  4  341 

Sometimes  the  subject  hesitates  to  begin,  thinking,  in 
spite  of  our  wording  of  the  instructions,  that  a  perfect  re- 
production is  expected.  Others  fall  into  the  opposite  mis- 
understanding and  think  that  they  are  prohibited  from 
using  the  words  of  the  text  and  must  give  the  thought 
entirely  in  their  own  language.  In  cases  of  hesitation  we 
should  urge  the  subject  a  little  and  remind  him  that  he  is 
to  express  the  thought  of  the  selection  in  whatever  way  he 
prefers;  that  the  main  thing  is  to  tell  what  the  selection 
says. 

Scoring.  The  test  is  passed  if  the  subject  is  able  to  re- 
peat in  reasonably  consecutive  order  the  main  thoughts  of 
at  least  one  of  the  selections.  Neither  elegance  of  expression 
nor  verbatim  repetition  is  expected.  We  merely  want  to 
know  whether  the  leading  thoughts  in  the  selection  have 
been  grasped  and  remembered. 

All  grades  of  accuracy  are  found,  both  in  the  compre- 
hension of  the  selection  and  in  the  recall,  and  it  is  not  always 
easy  to  draw  the  line  between  satisfactory  and  unsatis- 
factory responses.  The  following  sample  performances 
will  serve  as  a  guide:  — 

Selection  (a) 

Satisfactory.  "The  tests  which  we  are  making  are  given  for  the 
advancement  of  science  and  for  the  information  of  the  person 
tested.  By  scientific  means  we  will  be  able  to  separate  character- 
istics derived  from  heredity  and  environment  and  to  treat  each 
class  separately.  By  doing  so  we  can  more  accurately  correct  de- 
fects." 

"Tests  like  these  are  for  two  purposes.  First  to  develop  a 
science,  and  second  to  apply  it  to  the  person  to  help  him.  The 
tests  are  to  find  out  how  you  differ  from  another  and  to  measure 
the  difference  between  your  heredity  and  environment." 

"These  tests  are  given  to  see  if  we  can  separate  heredity  and  en- 
vironment and  to  see  if  we  can  find  out  how  one  person  differs  from 
another.  We  can  then  correct  these  differences  and  teach  people 
more  effectively." 


342      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

"The  tests  that  we  are  now  making  are  valuable  along  both 
scientific  and  personal  lines.  By  using  them  it  can  be  found  out 
where  a  person  is  weak  and  where  he  is  strong.  We  can  then 
strengthen  his  weak  points  and  remedy  some  things  that  would 
otherwise  be  neglected.  They  are  of  great  benefit  to  science  and  to 
the  person  concerned." 

"Tests  such  as  we  are  now  making  are  of  great  importance  be- 
cause they  aim  to  show  in  what  respects  we  differ  from  others  and 
why,  and  if  they  do  this  they  will  be  able  to  guide  us  into  the  right 
channel  and  bring  success  instead  of  failure." 

Unsatisfactory.  "Tests  such  as  we  are  now  making  are  of  value 
both  for  the  advancement  of  science  and  for  the  information  of 
the  person  interested.  It  is  necessary  to  know  this." 

"Such  tests  as  we  are  now  making  show  about  the  human  mind 
and  show  in  what  channels  we  are  fitted.  It  is  the  testing  of  each 
individual  between  his  effects  of  inheritancy  and  environment." 

"  It  is  very  interesting  for  us  to  study  science  for  two  reasons; 
first,  to  test  our  mental  ability,  and  second  for  the  further  develop- 
ment of  science." 

"Tests  such  as  we  are  now  making  help  in  two  ways;  it  helps 
the  scientists  and  it  gives  information  to  the  people." 

"Tests  are  being  given  to  pupils  to-day  to  better  them  and  to 
aid  science  for  generations  to  come.  If  each  person  knows  exactly 
his  own  beliefs  and  ideas  and  faults  he  can  find  out  exactly  what 
kind  of  work  he  is  fitted  for  by  heredity.  The  tests  show  that  en- 
vironment does  n't  count,  for  if  you  are  all  right  you  will  get  along 
anyway."  (Note  invention.) 

Selection  (6) 

Satisfactory.  "There  are  different  opinions  about  life.  Some 
call  it  good  and  some  bad.  It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that 
it  is  middling,  because  we  are  never  as  happy  as  we  would  like  to 
be  and  we  are  never  as  sad  as  our  enemies  want  us  to  be." 

"One  hears  many  judgments  about  life.  Some  say  it  is  good, 
while  others  say  it  is  bad.  But  it  is  really  neither  of  the  extremes. 
Life  is  mediocre.  We  do  not  have  as  much  good  as  we  desire,  nor 
do  we  have  as  much  misfortune  as  others  want  us  to  have.  Never- 
theless, we  have  enough  good  to  keep  life  from  being  unjust." 

"Some  people  have  different  views  of  life  from  others.  Some 
say  it  is  bad,  others  say  it  is  good.  It  is  better  to  class  life  as 


SUPERIOR  ADULT,  4  343 

mediocre,  as  it  is  never  as  good  as  we  wish  it,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  it  might  be  worse." 

"  Some  people  think  differently  of  life.  Some  think  it  good,  some 
bad,  others  mediocre,  which  is  nearest  correct.  It  brings  unhappi- 
ness  to  us,  but  not  as  much  as  our  enemies  want  us  to  have." 

Unsatisfactory.  "Some  say  life  is  good,  some  say  it  is  mediocre. 
Even  though  some  say  it  is  mediocre  they  say  it  is  right." 

"There  are  two  sides  of  life.  Some  say  it  is  good  while  others 
say  it  is  bad.  To  some,  life  is  happy  and  they  get  all  they  can  out 
of  life.  For  others  life  is  not  happy  and  therefore  they  fail  to  get 
all  there  is  in  life." 

"One  hears  many  different  judgments  of  life.  Some  call  it  good, 
some  call  it  bad.  It  brings  unhappiness  and  it  does  not  have  enough 
pleasure.  It  should  be  better  distributed." 

"There  are  different  opinions  of  the  value  of  life.  Some  say  it  is 
good  and  some  say  it  is  bad.  Some  say  it  is  mediocrity.  Some 
think  it  brings  happiness  while  others  do  not." 

"Nowadays  there  is  much  said  about  the  value  of  lif e.  Some  say 
it  is  good,  while  others  say  it  is  bad.  A  person  should  not  have 
an  ill  feeling  toward  the  value  of  life,  and  he  should  not  be  unjust 
to  any  one.  Honesty  is  the  best  policy.  People  who  are  unjust  are 
more  likely  to  be  injured  by  their  enemies."  (Note  invention.) 

Remarks.  Contrary  to  what  the  subject  is  led  to  expect, 
the  test  is  less  a  test  of  memory  than  of  ability  to  compre- 
hend the  drift  of  an  abstract  passage.  A  subject  who  fully 
grasps  the  meaning  of  the  selection  as  it  is  read  is  not  likely 
to  fail  because  of  poor  memory.  Mere  verbal  memory 
improves  but  little  after  the  age  of  14  or  15  years,  as  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  our  adults  do  little  better  than  eighth- 
grade  children  in  repeating  sentences  of  twenty-eight  sylla- 
bles. On  the  other  hand,  adult  intelligence  is  vastly  su- 
perior in  the  comprehension  and  retention  of  a  logically 
presented  group  of  abstract  ideas. 

There  is  nothing  in  which  stupid  persons  cut  a  poorer 
figure  than  in  grappling  with  the  abstract.  Their  think- 
ing clings  tenaciously  to  the  concrete;  their  concepts  are 
vague  or  inaccurate;  the  interrelations  among  their  concepts 


344      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

are  scanty  in  the  extreme;  and  such  poor  mental  stores  as 
they  have  are  little  available  for  ready  use. 

A  few  critics  have  objected  to  the  use  of  tests  demanding 
abstract  thinking,  on  the  ground  that  abstract  thought  is 
a  very  special  aspect  of  intelligence  and  that  facility  in  it 
depends  almost  entirely  on  occupational  habits  and  the 
accidents  of  education.  Some  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to 
say  that  we  are  not  justified,  on  the  basis  of  any  number  of 
such  tests,  in  pronouncing  a  subject  backward  or  defective. 
It  is  supposed  that  a  subject  who  has  no  capacity  in  the  use 
of  abstract  ideas  may  nevertheless  have  excellent  intelli- 
gence "  along  other  lines."  In  such  cases,  it  is  said,  we 
should  not  penalize  the  subject  for  his  failures  in  handling 
abstractions,  but  substitute,  instead,  tests  requiring  motor 
coordination  and  the  manipulation  of  things,  tests  in  which 
the  supposedly  dull  child  often  succeeds  fairly  well. 

From  the  psychological  point  of  view,  such  a  proposal 
is  naively  unpsychological.  It  is  hi  the  very  essence  of  the 
higher  thought  processes  to  be  conceptual  and  abstract. 
What  the  above  proposal  amounts  to  is,  that  if  the  subject 
is  not  capable  of  the  more  complex  and  strictly  human 
type  of  thinking,  we  should  ignore  this  fact  and  estimate 
his  intelligence  entirely  on  the  ability  he  displays  to  carry 
on  mental  operations  of  a  more  simple  and  primitive  kind. 
This  would  be  like  asking  the  physician  to  ignore  the  dis- 
eased parts  of  his  patient's  body  and  to  base  his  diagnosis 
on  an  examination  of  the  organs  which  are  sound! 

The  present  test  throws  light  in  an  interesting  way  on 
the  integrity  of  the  critical  faculty.  Some  subjects  are  un- 
willing to  extend  the  report  in  the  least  beyond  what  they 
know  to  be  approximately  correct,  while  others  with  de- 
fective powers  of  auto-criticism  manufacture  a  report  which 
draws  heavily  on  the  imagination,  perhaps  continuing  in 
garrulous  fashion  as  long  as  they  can  think  of  anything 


SUPERIOR  ADULT,  6  345 

having  the  remotest  connection  with  any  thought  in  the 
selection.  We  have  included,  for  each  selection,  one  illus- 
tration of  this  type  in  the  sample  failures  given  above. 

The  worst  fault  of  the  test  is  its  susceptibility  to  the  in- 
fluence of  schooling.  Our  uneducated  adults  of  even  "  su- 
perior adult  "  intelligence  often  fail,  while  about  two  thirds 
of  high-school  pupils  succeed.  The  unschooled  adults  have 
a  marked  tendency  either  to  give  a  summary  which  is  in- 
adequate because  of  its  extreme  brevity,  or  else  to  give  a 
criticism  of  the  thought  which  the  passage  contains. 

This  test  first  appeared  in  Binet's  1911  revision,  in  the 
adult  group.  Binet  used  only  selection  (6),  and  in  a  slightly 
more  difficult  form  than  we  have  given  above.  Goddard 
gives  the  test  like  Binet  and  retains  it  in  the  adult  group. 
Kuhlmann  locates  it  in  year  XV,  using  only  selection  (a). 
On  the  basis  of  over  300  tests  of  adults  we  find  the  test  too 
difficult  for  the  "  average  adult  "  level,  even  on  the  basis  of 
only  one  success  in  two  trials  and  when  scored  on  the 
rather  liberal  standard  above  set  forth. 

Superior  adult,  5 :  repeating  seven  digits  reversed 

Procedure  and  Scoring,  the  same  as  in  previous  tests  of 
this  kind.  The  series  are:  4-1-6-2-5-9-3;  3-8-2-64-7-5; 
and  9-4-5-2-8-3-7. 

We  have  collected  fewer  data  on  this  test  than  on  any 
of  the  others,  as  it  was  added  later  to  the  test  series.  As 
far  as  we  have  used  it  we  have  found  few  "  average  adults  " 
who  pass,  while  about  hah*  the  "  superior  adults  "  do  so. 

Superior  adult,  6 :  ingenuity  test 
Procedure.  Problem  a  is  stated  as  follows:  — 

A  mother  sent  her  boy  to  the  river  and  told  him  to  bring  back  exactly 
7  pints  of  water.  She  gave  him  a  3-pint  vessel  and  a  5-pint  vessel. 


346      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

Show  me  how  the  boy  can  measure  out  exactly  7  pints  of  water,  using 
nothing  but  these  two  vessels  and  not  guessing  at  the  amount.  You 
should  begin  by  filling  the  5-pint  vessel  first.  Remember,  you  have  a 
3-pint  vessel  and  a  5-pint  vessel  and  you  must  bring  back  exactly 
7  pints. 

The  problem  is  given  orally,  but  may  be  repeated  if 
necessary. 

The  subject  is  not  allowed  pencil  or  paper  and  is  requested 
to  give  his  solution  orally  as  he  works  it  out.  It  is  then 
possible  to  make  a  complete  record  of  the  method  employed. 

The  subject  is  likely  to  resort  to  some  such  method  as 
to  "  fill  the  3-pint  vessel  two  thirds  full,"  or,  "  I  would  mark 
the  inside  of  the  5-pint  vessel  so  as  to  show  where  4  pints 
come  to,"  etc.  We  inform  the  subject  that  such  a  method 
is  not  allowable;  that  this  would  be  guessing,  since  he  could 
not  be  sure  when  the  3-pint  vessel  was  two  thirds  full 
(or  whether  he  had  marked  off  his  5-pint  vessel  accurately). 
Tell  him  he  must  measure  out  the  water  without  any  guess- 
work. Explain  also,  that  it  is  a  fair  problem,  not  a  "catch." 

Say  nothing  about  pouring  from  one  vessel  to  another, 
but  if  the  subject  asks  whether  this  is  permissible  the  answer 
is  "yes." 

The  time  limit  for  each  problem  is  5  minutes.  If  the 
subject  fails  on  the  first  problem,  we  explain  the  solution 
in  full  and  then  proceed  to  the  next. 

The  second  problem  is  like  the  first,  except  that  a  5- 
pint  vessel  and  a  7-pint  vessel  are  given,  to  get  8  pints,  the 
subject  being  told  to  begin  by  filling  the  5-pint  vessel. 

In  the  third  problem  4  and  9  are  given,  to  get  7,  the  in- 
struction being  to  "  begin  by  filling  the  4-pint  vessel." 

Note  that  in  each  problem  we  instruct  the  subject  how 
to  begin.  This  is  necessary  in  order  to  secure  uniformity 
of  conditions.  It  is  possible  to  solve  all  of  the  problems  by 
beginning  with  either  of  the  two  vessels,  but  the  solution 


SUPERIOR  ADULT,  6  347 

is  made  very  much  more  difficult  if  we  begin  in  the  direc- 
tion opposite  from  that  recommended. 

Give  no  further  aid.  It  is  necessary  to  refrain  from  com- 
ment of  every  kind. 

Scoring.  Two  of  the  three  problems  must  be  solved  cor- 
rectly within  the  5  minutes  alloted  to  each. 

Remarks.  We  have  called  this  a  test  of  ingenuity.  The 
subject  who  is  given  the  problem  finds  himself  involved  in 
a  difficulty  from  which  he  must  extricate  himself.  Means 
must  be  found  to  overcome  an  obstacle.  This  requires  prac- 
tical judgment  and  a  certain  amount  of  inventive  ingenuity. 
Various  possibilities  must  be  explored  and  either  accepted 
for  trial  or  rejected.  If  the  amount  of  invention  called  for 
seems  to  the  reader  inconsiderable,  let  it  be  remembered 
that  the  important  inventions  of  history  have  not  as  a  rule 
had  a  Minerva  birth,  but  instead  have  developed  by  suc- 
cessive stages,  each  involving  but  a  small  step  in  advance. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  emphasize  at  length  the  function  of 
invention  in  the  higher  thought  processes.  In  one  form  or 
another  it  is  present  in  all  intellectual  activity;  in  the  crea- 
tion and  use  of  language,  in  art,  in  social  adjustments,  in 
religion,  and  in  philosophy,  as  truly  as  in  the  domains  of 
science  and  practical  affairs.  Certainly  this  is  true  if  we 
accept  Mason's  broad  definition  of  invention  as  including 
"  every  change  in  human  activity  made  designedly  and 
systematically."  l  From  the  psychological  point  of  view, 
perhaps,  Mason  is  justified  in  looking  upon  the  great  in- 
ventor as  "  an  epitome  of  the  genius  of  the  world."  To 
develop  a  Krag-Jorgeson  from  a  bow  and  arrow,  a  "  velvet- 
tipped  "  lucifer  match  from  the  primitive  fire-stick,  or  a 
modern  piano  from  the  first  crude,  stringed,  musical  in- 
strument has  involved  much  the  same  intellectual  processes 
as  have  been  operative  in  transforming  fetishism  and  magic 
1  Otis  T.  Mason:  The  Origins  of  Inventions.  (London,  1902.) 


348      THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

into  religion  and  philosophy,  or  scattered  fragments  of 
knowledge  into  science. 

Psychologically,  invention  depends  upon  the  construc- 
tive imagination;  that  is,  upon  the  ability  to  abstract  from 
what  is  immediately  present  to  the  senses  and  to  picture 
new  situations  with  their  possibilities  and  consequences. 
Images  are  united  in  order  to  form  new  combinations. 

As  we  have  several  times  emphasized,  the  decisive  in- 
tellectual differences  among  human  beings  are  not  greatly 
dependent  upon  mere  sense  discrimination  or  native  re- 
tentiveness.  Far  more  important  than  the  raw  mass  of 
sense  data  is  the  correct  shooting  together  of  the  sense 
elements  in  memory  and  imagination.  This  is  but  another 
name  for  invention.  It  is  the  synthetic,  or  apperceptive, 
activity  of  the  mind  that  gives  the  "  seven-league  boots  " 
to- genius.  It  is,  however,  a  kind  of  ability  which  is  possessed 
by  all  minds  to  a  greater  or  less  degree.  Any  test  has  its 
value  which  gives  a  clue,  as  this  test  does,  to  the  subject's 
ability  in  this  direction. 

The  test  was  devised  by  the  writer  and  used  in  1905  in 
a  study  of  the  intellectual  processes  of  bright  and  dull  boys, 
but  it  was  not  at  that  time  standardized.  It  has  been  found 
to  belong  at  a  much  higher  mental  level  than  was  at  first 
supposed.  Only  an  insignificant  number  pass  the  test  below 
the  mental  age  of  14  years,  and  about  two  thirds  of  "  average 
adults  "  fail.  Of  our  "  superior  adults  "  somewhat  more  than 
75  per  cent  succeed.  Formal  education  influences  the  test 
little  or  not  at  all,  the  unschooled  business  men  making  a 
somewhat  better  showing  than  the  high-school  students. 


The  following  classified  lists  include  only  the  most  important  references 
under  each  topic.  So  many  investigations  have  been  made  with  the  Binet- 
Simon  tests  in  the  last  few  years,  and  so  many  articles  have  been  written 
in  evaluation  of  the  method,  that  a  complete  bibliography  of  the  subject 
would  require  thirty  or  forty  pages.  Those  who  desire  to  make  a  more 
thorough  study  of  the  literature  are  referred  to  the  admirable  annotated 
bibliography  compiled  by  Samuel  C.  Kohs,  and  published  by  Warwick  & 
York,  Baltimore.  Kohs's  Bibliography  contains  254  references,  and  is  com- 
plete to  January  1,  1914. 

BINET-SIMON  TESTS  OF  NORMAL  CHILDREN 

1.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.    "Le  deVeloppement  de  l'intelligence  chez 
les  enfants";  in  Annie  psychologique  (1908),  vol.  14,  pp.  1-94. 

Exposition  of  the  original  1908  scale  with  results. 

2.  Binet,  A.  "  Nouvelles  recherches  sur  la  mesure  du  niveau  intellectuel 
chez  les  enfants  d'Scole";  in  Annie   psychologique   (1911),    vol.  17, 
pp.  145-201. 

Presents  the  1911  revision. 

3.  Bobertag,  O.  "  Ueber  Intelligenzprdfungen  (nach  der  Methode  von 
Binet  und  Simon)";  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  angewande  Psychologic  (1911), 
vol.  5,  pp.  105-203;  and  (1912),  vol.  0,  pp.  495-537. 

Analysis  of  400  cases  and  criticism  of  method  and  results. 

4.  Dougherty,  M.  L.   "Report  on  the  Binet-Simon  Tests  given  to  Four 
Hundred  and  Eighty-three  Children  in  the  Public  Schools  of  Kansas 
City,  Kansas";  in  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  (1913),  vol.  4, 
pp.  338-52. 

5.  Goddard,  H.  H.   "The  Binet-Simon  Measuring  Scale  for  Intelligence, 
Revised";  in  Training  School  Bulletin  (1911),  vol.  8,  pp.  56-452. 

6.  Hoffman,  A.  "  Vergleichende  Intelligenzprtifungen  an  VorschUlern  und 
VolksschUlern";  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  angewande  Psychologic  (1913),  vol.  8, 
pp. 102-20. 

One  hundred  and  fifty-six  subjects.  Ages  seven,  nine,  and  ten. 

7.  Johnston,  Katherine   L.  "Binet's  Method  for    the  Measurement  of 
Intelligence;  Some  Results";   in   Journal  of  Experimental  Pedagogy 
(1911),  vol.  1,  pp.  24-31. 

Result*  of  200  tests  of  school  children. 


350  SELECTED  REFERENCES 

8.  Kuhlraann,  F.  "Some  Results  of  Examining  1000  Public-School  Chil- 
dren with  a  Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  Tests  of  Intelligence  by  Un- 
trained Teachers";  in  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics  (1914),  vol.  18, 
pp.  150-79,  and  233-69. 

9.  Phillips,  Byron  A.   "The  Binet  Tests  applied  to  Colored  Children"; 
in  Psychological  Clinic  (1914),  pp.  190-96. 

A  comparison  of  86  colored  and  137  white  children. 

10.  Rogers,  Agnes  L.,  and  Mclntyre,  J.  L.   "The  Measurement  of  Intel- 
ligence in  Children  by  the  Binet-Simon  Scale";  in  British  Journal  of 
Psychology  (1914),  vol.  7,  pp.  265-300. 

11.  Rowe,  E.  C.   "Five  Hundred  Forty-Seven  White  and  Two  Hundred 
Sixty-Eight  Indian  Children  tested  by  the  Binet-Simon  Tests";  in 
Pedagogical  Seminary  (1914),  vol.  21,  pp.  454-69. 

12.  Strong,  Alice  C.   "Three  Hundred  Fifty  White  and  Colored  Children 
measured  by  the  Binet-Simon  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence";  in 
Pedagogical  Seminary  (1913),  vol.  20,  pp.  485-515. 

13.  Tennan,  L.  M.,  and  Childs,  H.  G.    "A  Tentative  Revision  and  Ex- 
tention  of  the  Binet-Simon  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence";  in  Jour- 
nal of  Educational  Psychology  (1912),  vol.  3,  pp.  61-74, 133-43, 198-208, 
and  277-89. 

Results  of  396  tests  of  California  school-children. 

14.  Tennan,  Lyman,  Ordahl,  Galbreath,  and  Talbert.     The  Stanford  Re- 
vision and  Extension  of  the  Binet-Simon  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence. 
(1916.) 

Detailed  analysis  of  the  results  secured  by  testing  1000  unselected  school-children 
within  two  months  of  a  birthday. 

15.  Weintrob,  J.  and  R.  "The  Influence  of  Environment  on  Mental  Abil- 
ity as  shown  by  the  Binet  Tests";  in  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology 
(1912),  pp.  577-86. 

16.  Winch,  W.  H.  "Binet's  Mental  Tests:  What  They  Are,  and  What  We 
Can  Do  with  Them";  in  Child  Study  (London),  1913,  1914,  1915,  and 
1916. 

An  extended  series  of  articles  setting  forth  results  of  tests  with  normal  children,  and 
giving  valuable  criticisms  and  suggestions. 

BINET-SIMON  TESTS  OF  THE  FEEBLE-MINDED 

17.  Chotzen,  F.   "Die  Intelligenzprlifungsmethode  von  Binet-Simon  bei 
schwachsinnigen  Kindern";  in  Zeitschrift  fur  angeicande  Psychologic 
(1912),  vol.  6,  pp.  411-94. 

A  critical  study  of  the  results  of  280  tests. 

18.  Goddard,  H.  H.    "Four  Hundred  Feeble-Minded  Children  classified 
by  the  Binet  Method";  in  Pedagogical  Seminary  (1910),  vol.  17,  pp. 
387-97;  also  in  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics  (1910),  vol.  15,  pp.  17-30. 

Offers  important  evidence  of  the  value  of  the  Binet-Simon  method. 


SELECTED  REFERENCES  351 

19.  Kuhlmann,  F.  "The  Binet  and  Simon  Tests  of  Intelligence  in  Grad- 
ing Feeble-Minded  Children";  in  Journal  of  Psycho- Asthenias  (1912), 
vol.  16,  pp.  173-93. 

Analysis  of  results  from  1300  cases. 

BINET-SIMON  TESTS  OF  DELINQUENTS 

20.  Bluemel,  C.  S.  "Binet  Tests  on  Two  Hundred  Juvenile  Delinquents"; 
in  Training  School  Bulletin  (1915),  pp.  187-93. 

21.  Goddard,  H.  H.    The  Criminal  Imbecile.   The  Macmillan  Company. 
(1915.)   157  pages. 

An  analysis  of  the  mentality  of  three  murderers  of  moron  or  borderline  intelligence. 

22.  Goddard,  H.  H.    "The  Responsibility  of  Children  in  the  Juvenile 
Court";  in  Journal  of  Criminal  Law  and  Criminology  (September, 
1912). 

Analysis  of  100  tests  of  juvenile  delinquents. 

23.  Healy,  William.    The  Individual  Delinquent.    Little,  Brown  &  Co. 
(1915.)  830  pages. 

A  textbook  on  delinquents.   Gives  results  of  many  Binet-Simon  tests. 

24.  Spaulding,  Edith  R.   "The  Results  of  Mental  and  Physical  Examina- 
tion of  Four  Hundred  Women  Offenders";  in  Journal  of  Criminal  Law 
and  Criminology  (1915),  pp.  704-17. 

25.  Sullivan,  W.  C.    "La  mesure  du  developpement  intellectuel  chez  les 
jeunes  delinquantes";  in  Annie  psychologique  (1912),  vol.  18,  pp.  341- 
61. 

26.  Williams,  J.  Harold.  A  Study  of  150  Delinquent  Boys.  Bulletin  no.  1, 
Research  Laboratory  of  the  Buckel  Foundation.   (1915.)   15  pages. 

The  Stanford  revision  used.   Report  of  over  400  cases  to  follow. 

BINET-SIMON  TESTS  OF  SUPERIOR  CHILDREN 

27.  Jeronutti,  A.    "  Ricerche  psicologiche  sperirnentali  sugli  alunni  molto 
intelligenti  ";  in  Lab.  di  Psicol.  Sperim.  delta  Reg.  Univ.  Roma.   (1912.) 

Out  of  fifteen  hundred  school  and  kindergarten  children,  ages  five  to  twelve,  fourteen 
were  selected  by  the  teachers  as  the  brightest.  The  Hinet  test  showed  them  to  be  from 
one  to  three  years  in  advance  of  their  chronological  ages. 

28.  Terman,  L.  M.    "The  Mental  Hygiene  of  Exceptional  Children";  in 
Pedagogical  Seminary  (1915),  vol.  22,  pp.  529-37. 

Data  on  31  children  testing  above  120  I.  Q. 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  GIVING  THE  BINET-SIMON  TESTS 

29.  Binet,  A.,  and  Simon,  Th.   A  Method  of  Measuring  the  Development  of 
Intelligence  in   Young  Children.    Chicago  Medical   Book  Company. 
(1915.)   82  pages. 

Authorized  translation  of  Oinet'i  final  instruction*  for  giving  the  te*U. 


352  SELECTED  REFERENCES 

30.  Goddard,  H.  H.    "A  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence";  in  Training 
School  Bulletin  (1910),  vol.  6,  pp.  146-55. 
Condensed  translation  of  Bine t 'a  1903  Measuring  Scale  of  Intelligence. 

81.  Goddard,  H.  H.   "The  Binet-Simon  Measuring  Scale  for  Intelligence, 
Revised";  in  Training  School  Bulletin  (1911),  vol.  8,  pp.  56-62. 

32.  Goddard,  H.  H.     "Standard  Method  for  Giving  the  Binet  Test";  in 
Training  School  Bulletin  (1913),  vol.  10,  pp.  23-30. 

33.  Kuhlmann,  F.    "  A  Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  System  for  Measuring 
the  Intelligence  of  Children";  Monograph  Supplement  of  Journal  of 
Psycho-Asthenics  (September,  1912),  41  pages. 

34.  Wallin,  J.  E.  W.    "A  Practical  Guide  for  the  Administration  of  the 
Binet-Simon  Scale  for  Measuring  Intelligence";  in  The  Psychological 
Clinic  (1911)  vol.  5,  pp.  217-38. 

CRITICISMS  AND  EVALUATIONS  OF  THE  BINET-SIMON 
METHOD 

35.  Berry,  C.  S.  "A  Comparison  of  the  Binet  Tests  of  1908  and  1911";  in 
Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  (1912),  vol.  3,  pp.  444-51. 

36.  Bobertag,  O.    "Ueber  Intelligenzpriifungen  (nach  der  Methode  von 
Binet  und  Simon) ";  in  Zeitschrift  fur  angewande  Psychologic.  (A,  1911), 
vol.  5,  pp.  105-203;  (B,  1912),  vol.  6,  pp.  495-537. 

Accepts  the  method  and  gives  valuable  suggestions  for  improvement. 

37.  Brigham,  Carl  C.    "An  Experimental  Critique  of   the  Binet-Simon 
Scale";  in  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  (1914),  pp.  439-48. 

Finds  the  scale  90%  efficient. 

38.  Goddard,  H.  H.    "The  Reliability  of  the  Binet-Simon  Measuring 
Scale  of  Intelligence";  in  Proceedings  of  the  Fourth  International  Con- 
gress of  School  Hygiene  (1913),  vol.  5,  pp.  693-99. 

Application  of   the  theory  of  probability  to  the  results  proves  the  extremely  small 
liability  of  error. 

39.  Kohs,  Samuel  C.  "  The  Practicability  of  the  Binet  Scale  and  the  Ques- 
tion of  the  Borderline  Case";  in  Training  School  Bulletin  (1916),  pp. 
211-23. 

Analysis  of  cases  showing  the  reliability  of  the  scale. 

40.  Kuhlmann,  F.   "  Binet  and  Simon's  System  for  Measuring  the  Intelli- 
gence of  Children";  in  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics  (1911),  vol.  15,  pp. 
79-92. 

Finds  the  method  of  the  greatest  value. 

41.  Kuhlmann,  F.   "A  Reply  to  Dr.  L.  P.  Ayres's  Criticism  of  the  Binet 
and  Simon  System  for  Measuring  the  Intelligence  of  Children";  in 
Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics  (1911),  vol.  16,  pp.  58-67. 

Many  of  the  Ayres  criticisms  are  shown  to  be  unfounded. 


SELECTED   REFERENCES  353 

42.  Meumann,  E.   Vorlesungen  zur  Einfiihrung  in  die  Experimentette  Pdda- 
gogik  (1913),  vol.  2,  pp.  130-300. 

Summary  of  the  literature  on  Binet  tests  up  to  1913.  Accepts  the  method  but  gives 
suggestions  for  improvement.  This  summary  and  other  writings  of  Meumann  on  the 
psychology  of  endowment  are  reviewed  by  Lewis  M.  Terman  in  a  series  of  four  articles 
in  the  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenia  for  1915. 

43.  Otis,  A.  S.  "Some  Logical  and  Mathematical  Aspects  of  the  Measure- 
ment of  Intelligence  by  the  Binet-Simon  Method  ";  in  The  Psychological 
Review  (April  and  June,  1916). 

Considers  the  Binet-Simon  method  imperfect  from  the  mathematical  point  of  view. 

44.  Schmitt,  Clara.    Standardization  of  Tests  for  Defective  Children.    Psy- 
chological Monographs  (1915),  no.  83,  181  pages. 

Contains  (pp.  52-67)  a  discussion  of  the  "Fallacies  and  Inadequacies  of  the  Binet- 
Simon  Series."  Most  of  the  criticisms  here  given  are  either  superficial  or  unfair,  some 
of  them  apparently  being  due  to  a  lack  of  acquaintance  with  Binet's  writings. 

45.  Stern,  W.   The  Psychological  Methods  of  Measuring  Intelligence.  Trans- 
lated by  G.  M.  Whipple.   (1913.)   160  pages. 

A  splendid  critical  discussion  of  the  Binet-Simon  method.  Should  be  read  by  every 
one  who  would  use  the  scale. 

46.  Tennan,  L.  M.    "Suggestions  for  Revising,  Extending,  and  Supple- 
menting the  Binet  Intelligence  Tests";  in  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenias 
(1913),  vol.  18,  pp.  20-33. 

47.  Terman,   L.   M.    "Psychological  Principles  Underlying  the  Binet- 
Simon  Scale  and  Some  Practical  Considerations  for  its  Correct  Use"; 
in  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics  (1913),  vol.  18,  pp.  93-104. 

48.  Terman,  L.  M.   "A  Report  of  the  Buffalo  Conference  on  the  Binet- 
Simon  Tests  of  Intelligence";  in  Pedagogical  Seminary  (1913),  vol.  20, 
pp.  549-54. 

Abstracts  of  papers  presented  at  the  above  conference. 

49.  Terman,  Lyman,  Ordahl,  Galbreath,  and  Talbert.    The  Stanford  Re- 
vision and  Extension  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale  for  Measuring  Intelli- 
gence.  (1916.) 

Contains  a  chapter  on  the  validity  of  the  individual  tests  and  on  considerations 
relating  to  the  formation  of  an  intelligence  scale. 

50.  Terman  and  Knollin.   "The  Detection  of  Borderline  Deficiency  by 
the  Binet-Simon   Method";   in  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics  (June, 
1916). 

A  comparison  of  the  accuracy  of  the  Stanford  and  other  revisions  with  borderline 
MMfc 

51.  Treves  and  Saffiotti.    "L'echelle  metrique  de  1'intclligence  modifiee 
selon  la  methode   Treves-Saffiotti";   in  Amice  Psychologique  (1912), 
pp.  327^10. 

Criticize  the  age-grade  method  of  measuring  intelligence  and  propose  a  substitute. 


354  SELECTED  REFERENCES 

52.  Wallin,  J.  E.  W.  Experimental  Studies  of  Mental  Defectives.  A  Critique 
of  the  Binet-Simon  Tests.  Warwick  &  York.   (1912.) 

Criticism  based  on  the  use  of  the  scale  with  epileptics. 

53.  Yerkes  and  Bridges.    A  Point  Scale  for  Measuring  Mental  Ability. 
Warwick  &  York. 

Authors  think  the  point  scale  preferable  to  the  Binet-Simon  method. 

BOOKS  ON  MENTAL  DEFICIENCY 

54.  Binet,  A.,  and  Simon,  Th.    Mentally  Defective  Children.    Translated 
from  the  French  by  W.  B.  Drummond.  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.  (1914.) 
171  pages. 

Discusses  the  psychology,  pedagogy,  and  medical  examination  of  defectives. 

55.  Goddard,   H.  H.    Feeble-M indedness ;  Its  Causes  and  Consequences. 
The  Macmillan  Company.   (1913.)   599  pages. 

The  most  important  single  volume  on  the  subject.    Extensive  data  on  the  causes  of 
feeble-mindedness  and  excellent  clinical  pictures  of  all  grades  of  mental  defects. 

56.  Goddard,  H.  H.    The  Kallikak  Family.    The  Macmillan  Company. 
(1914.)   121  pages. 

An  epoch-making  study  of  the  hereditary  transmission  of  mental  deficiency  in  a  de- 
generate family. 

67.  Holmes,  Arthur.   The  Conservation  of  the  Child.  J.  B.  Lippincott  Com- 
pany.  (1912.)   345  pages. 
Methods  of  examination  and  treatment  of  defective  children. 

58.  Holmes,  Arthur.  The  Backward  Child.  Bobbs-Merrill  Company.  (1915.) 

A  popular  treatment  of  the  handling  of  backward  children. 

59.  Huey,  E.  B.  Backward  and  Feeble-Minded  Children.  Warwick  &  York. 
(1912.)  221  pages. 

Devoted  mainly  to  clinical  accounts  of  borderline  cases. 

60.  Lapage,  C.  P.  Feeble-Mindedness  in  Children  of  School  Age.  The  Uni- 
versity Press,  Manchester,  England.    (1911.)   359  pages. 

61.  Sherlock,  E.  B.    The  Feeble-Minded ;  A  Guide  to  Study  and  Practice. 
The  Macmillan  Company.   (1911.)   327  pages. 

62.  Tredgold,  A.  F.   Mental  Deficiency  (Amentia).   Bailliere,  Tindall,  and 
Cox.  London,  England.   (2d  ed.  1914.)  491  pages. 

The  best  medical  treatment  of  the  subject. 

STUDIES  OF  THE  PROGRESS  OF  CHILDREN  THROUGH 
THE  GRADES 

63.  Ayres,  Leonard  P.  Laggards  in  our  Schools.  The  Russell  Sage  Founda- 
tion.  (1909.)  236  pages. 

Interesting  and  instructive  discussion  of  school  retardation  and  its  causes. 


SELECTED   REFERENCES  355 

64.  Blan,  Louis  B.  A  Special  Study  of  the  Incidence  of  Retardation.  Teach- 
ers College,  Columbia  University,  Contributions  to  Education,  no.  40. 
(1911.)   Ill  pages. 

Review  of  the  literature  and  a  statistical  study  of  the  progress  of  4579  children. 

65.  Keyes,  C.  H.   Progress  Through  the  Grades  of  City  Schools.   Teachers 
College,  Columbia  University,  Contributions  to  Education,  no.  42. 
(1911.)  79  pages. 

Important  study  of  the  progress  of  several  thousand  children. 

66.  Strayer,  George  D.   Age  and  Grade  Census  of  Schools  and  Colleges. 
Bulletin  no.  451,  U.S.  Bureau  of  Education.   (1911.)   144  pages. 

Statistics  of  the  age-grade  status  of  the  children  in  318  cities. 

67.  See  also  the  Reports  of  leading  school  surveys,  such  as  those  of  New 
York,  Salt  Lake  City,  Butte,  Springfield  (Mass.),  Denver,  Cleveland, 
etc. 

REFERENCES  ON  THE  SPECIAL  CLASS  FOR 
EXCEPTIONAL  CHILDREN 

68.  Huey,  E.  B.   "  The  Education  of  Defectives  and  the  Training  of  Teach- 
ers for  Special  Classes";  in  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  (1913), 
pp.  545-50. 

69.  Goddard,  H.  H.  School  Training  of  Defective  Children.    World  Book 
Company.   (1914.)  97  pages. 

Based  on  his  survey  of  the  treatment  of  backward  children  in  the  schools  of  New 
York  City. 

70.  Holmes,  W.  H.    School  Organization  and  the  Individual  Child.    The 
Davis  Press,  Worcester,  Massachusetts.   (1912.)   211  pages. 

A  comprehensive  account  of  the  efforts  which  have  been  made  to  adjust  the  school 
to  the  capacities  of  individual  children. 

71.  Maennel,  B.    Auxiliary  Education.    Translated  from  the  German  by 
Emma  Sylvester.   Doubleday,  Page  &  Co.    (1909.)   207  pages. 

72.  Van  Sickle,  J.  H.,  Witmer,  L.,  and  Ayres,  L.  P.   Provision  for  Excep- 
tional Children  in  Public  Schools.    Bulletin  no.  461,  U.S.  Bureau  of 
Education.    (1911.)   92  pages. 

73.  Shaer,  I.  "Special  Classes  for  Bright  Children  in  an  English  Elementary 
School":  in  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology  (1913),  pp.  209-22. 

74.  Stern,  W.   "The  Supernormal  Child";  in  Journal  of  Educational  Psy- 
chology (1911),  pp.  143-48  and  181-90. 

A  strong  plea  for  special  classes  for  superior  children. 

75.  Vaney,  V.   Les  classes  pour  enfants  arri&res.    Bulletin  de  la  Soci6t6 
libre  pour  1'etude  psychologique  de  I'cnfant  (1911),  pp.  53-152. 

Report  of  the  French  National  Commission  appointed  to  investigate  methods  of 
treatment  nnd  training. 


356  SELECTED  REFERENCES 

76.  Witmer,  L.    The  Special  Class  for  Backward  Children.    The  Psycho- 
logical Clinic  Press,  Philadelphia.   (1911.)  275  pages. 

An  account  of  the  special  class  conducted  in  connection  with  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  Summer  School. 

LIST  OF  BINET'S  MOST  IMPORTANT  CONTRIBUTIONS 
TO  THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  INTELLIGENCE 

77.  Binet,  A.    L' Etude  experimental  de  I 'intelligence.    Paris:  Schleicher 
freres.  (1903.) 

78.  Binet,  A.   "A  Propos  de  la  mesure  de  Fintelligence";  in  Annie  psy~ 
chologique  (1905),  vol.  11,  pp.  69-82. 

79.  Binet,  A.    Lea  enfanis  anormaux ;  guide  pour  V admission  des  enfants 
anormaux  dans  les  classes  de  perfectionnement.  Paris:  Colin.  (1907.) 

80.  Binet,  A.   Comment  les  instituteurs  jugent-ils  rintelligence  d'un  ecolier  ? 
Bulletin  de  la  Societe  libre  pour  1'etude  psychologique  de  1'enfant 
(1910),  no.  10,  pp.  172-82. 

81.  Binet,  A.   "Nouvelles  recherches  sur  la  mesure  du  niveau  intellectuel 
chez   les  enfants  d'ecole";    in   Annee  psychologique  (1911),  vol.  17, 
pp.  145-201. 

82.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.    "Sur  la  n£cessit6  d'etablir  un  diagnostique 
scientifique  des  etats  inferieurs  de  1'intelligence";  in  Annee  psycholo- 
gique (1905),  vol.  11,  pp.  163-90. 

83.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.   "Methodes  nouvelles  pour  le  diagnostique 
du  niveau  intellectuel  des  anormaux";  in  Annee  psychologique  (1905), 
vol.  11,  pp.  191-244. 

84.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.  "  Application  des  Methodes  nouvelles  au  diag- 
nostique du  niveau  intellectuel  chez  des  enfants  normaux  et  anormaux 
d'hospice  et  d'ecole  primaire";  in  Annee  psychologique  (1905),  vol.  11, 
pp.  245-336. 

85.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.   "  Le  developpement  de  1'intelligence  chez 
les  enfants";  hi  Annie  psychologique  (1908),  vol.  14,  pp.  1-94. 

86.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.  "Langage  et  pensee";  in  Annee  psychologique 
(1908),  vol.  14,  pp.  284-339. 

87.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.    " L'intelligence   des  imbeciles";  in  Annie 
psychologique  (1909),  vol.  15,  pp.  1-147. 

88.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.   "Nouvelle  theorie  psychologique  et  clinique 
de  la  demence";  in  Annee  psychologique  (1909),  vol.  15,  pp.  168-272. 

89.  Binet,  A.,  et  Simon,  Th.     La  mesure  du  developpement  de  rintelligence 
chez  les  jeunes  enfante.     Bulletin  de  la  Societe  libre  pour  1'etude  psy- 
chologique de  1'enfant  (1911),  no.  11,  pp.  187-256. 


SUGGESTIONS  FOR 

A  TEACHER'S  PRIVATE  LIBRARY 

ON  EXCEPTIONAL  CHILDREN 

Ayres,  L.  P.    Laggards  in  our  Schools.     The  Russell  Sage  Foundation. 
(1909.)   236  pages.   $1.50. 
Treats  the  amount  and  causes  of  school  retardation. 

Binet,  A.,  and  Simon,  Th.   Mentally  Defective  Children.    Translated  from 
the  French  by  W.  B.  Dnunmond.    Longmans,  Green  &  Co.    (1914.) 
171  pages.  $1.00. 
Discusses  the  psychology,  pedagogy  and  medical  examination  of  defectives. 

Binet,  A.,  and  Simon,  Th.   A  Method  of  Measuring  the  Development  of  In- 
telligence in  Young  Children.  Chicago  Medical  Book  Company.    (1915.) 
82  pages.  $1.00. 
Authorized  translation  of  Binet's  final  instructions  for  giving  the  tests. 

Goddard,  H.  H.    Feeble- M indedness ;   Its  Causes  and  Consequences,   The 
Macmillan  Company.   (1913.)  599  pages.  $4.00. 
The  most  important  single  volume  on  the  subject. 

Goddard,  H.  H.  The  Kallikak  Family.  The  Macmillan  Company.  (1914.) 
121  pages.  $1.50. 
A  study  of  the  hereditary  transmission  of  mental  deficiency  in  one  family. 

Goddard,  H.  H.    School  Training  of  Defective  Children.  World  Book  Com- 
pany.  (1914.)   97  pages.  75  cents. 
Admirable  treatment  of  the  entire  subject. 

Goddard,  H.  H.  The  Criminal  Imbecile.  The  Macmillan  Company.  (1915.) 
157  pages.  $1.50. 
An  analysis  of  three  murderers  of  borderline  intelligence. 

Holmes,  Arthur.  The  Conservation  of  the  Child.  J.  B.  Lippincott  Company. 
(1912.)  345  pages.  $1.25. 
Methods  of  examination  and  treatment  of  defective  children. 

Holmes,  Arthur.     The  Backward  Child.  The  Bobbs-Merrill  Co.    (1915.) 
$1.00. 
A  popular  treatment  of  the  subject. 

Holmes,  W.  H.   School  Organization  and  the  Individual  Child.  The  Davis 
Press,  Worcester,  Massachusetts.   (1912.)  211  pages.  $2.50. 

A  comprehensive  account  of  methods  of  adjusting  school  work  to  the  capacity  of 
the  individual  child. 

Huey,  E.  B.    Backward  and  Feeble-Minded  Children.    Warwick  &  York. 
(1912.)  221  pages.  $1.40. 
Clinical  studies  of  borderline  cases. 


358    SUGGESTIONS  FOR  A  TEACHER'S   LIBRARY 

Kelynack,  T.  N.  (Editor).  Defective  Children.  John  Bale,  Sons,  and 
Daniellson,  London.  (1915.)  447  pages.  7s.  Gd. 

Written  by  many  authors  and  devoted  to  all  kinds  of  physical  and  mental  defects. 
Kuhlmann,  F.    "A  Revision  of  the  Binet-Simon  System  for  Measuring 
the  Intelligence  of  Children."    Monograph  Supplement  of  Journal  of 
Psycho-Asthenics.   (1912.)   41  pages.   25  cents. 
Contains  instructions  for  use  of  the  Kuhlmann  revision. 

Stern,  W.  The  Psychological  Method  of  Measuring  Intelligence.  Trans- 
lated from  the  German  by  G.  M.  Whipple.  Warwick  &  York.  (1913.) 
160  pages.  $1.25. 

Terman,  Lyman,  Ordahl,  Galbreath,  and  Talbert.  The  Stanford  Revision 
and  Extension  of  the  Binet-Simon  Scale  for  Measuring  Intelligence.  (1916.) 

Extended  analysis  of  1000  tests.   Data  on  the  relation  of  intelligence  to  school  success, 
social  status,  etc. 

Terman,  Lewis  M.    The  Hygiene  of  the  School  Child.    Hough  ton  MifBin 
Company.   (1914.)   417  pages.  $1.65. 
Devoted  to  the  physical  defects  of  school  children. 

Tredgold,  A.  F.    Mental  Deficiency  (Amentia).    Bailliere,  Tindall  &  Cox, 
London.   (1914.)  491  pages.   125.  Qd. 
The  best  medical  treatment  of  the  subject. 

Whipple,  G.  M.   Manual  of  Mental  and  Physical  Tests.  Warwick  &  York. 
Vol.  i   (1914),  365  pages  ($2.25);  vol.  n  (1915),  336  pages  ($2.00). 
The  set,  $3.75. 
The  best  treatment  of  mental  tests  other  than  those  of  the  Binet  system. 

Witmer,  L.    The  Special  Class  for  Backward  Children.   The  Psychological 
Clinic  Press,  Philadelphia.   (1911.)  275  pages.  $1.50. 
Problems  encountered  in  connection  with  the  special  class. 

MAGAZINES 

The  Training  School  Bulletin.  Published  monthly  by  the  Training  School, 
Vineland,  New  Jersey.  $1.00  per  year.  Edited  by  H.  II.  Goddard  and 
E.  R.  Johnstone. 

The  Psychological  Clinic.  Published  monthly  by  the  Psychological  Clinic 
Press,  Philadelphia.  $1.50  a  year.  Edited  by  Lightner  Witmer. 

The  Journal  of  Delinquency.  Published  bi-monthly  by  the  Whittier  State 
School,  Whittier,  California.  $1.25  a  year.  Edited  by  Williams,  God- 
dard, Terman,  and  others. 

The  Journal  of  Psycho-Asthenics.  Published  quarterly  at  Faribault, 
Minnesota.  Organ  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Study  of  the 
Feeble-Minded.  $1.00  per  year .  Edited  by  A.  C.  Rogers  and  F.  Kuhl- 
mann. 

The  Journal  of  Educational  Psychology.  Published  by  Warwick  &  York, 
Baltimore.  $2.50  a  year.  Edited  by  J.  Carleton  Bell. 


INDEX 


Abstract  thought,  tests  of,  344. 

Absurdities,  255  ff. 

Adolescence,  and  variability  in  intel- 
ligence, 67. 

Adult  intelligence,  54. 

Adults,  how  to  find  I  Q  of  adults, 
140. 

/Esthetic  comparison,  165  Jf. 

Age,  test  of  giving  age,  173  jf. 

Age  standards,  40. 

Alternative  tests,  136. 

Amateur  testing,  107  jf. 

Apperception,  169. 

Arithmetical  reasoning,  319  jf. 

Association  processes,  £74. 

Attention,  during  the  test,  121. 

Attitude  of  the  subject,  109. 

Auto-criticism,  156,  171,  195. 

Average  intelligence,  94  ff. 

Ball  and  field  test,  210 /.,  286. 

Berry,  C.  S.,  114. 

Binet,  on  how  teachers  judge  intelli- 
gence, 28  Jf.;  Binet's  conception  of 
intelligence,  44/.,  123,  149,  151, 
154,  156,  159,  165,  171,  173,  180, 
181,  183,  185,  186,  190,  196,  203, 
205,  217,  231,  232,  234,  247,  251, 
252,  254,  258,  260,  261,  264,  276, 
285,  289,  315,  322,  327,  333,  339, 
345. 

Binet-Simon  method,  nature  and 
derivation  of  the  scale,  36 ff., 
47/.;  limitations  of,  48 /. 

Bloch,  203. 

Bluemel,  C.  S.,  107. 

Bobertag,  Otto,  106,  113,  176,  178, 
180,  181,  185,  188,  190,  203,  200, 
232,  237,  240,  252,  275,  285,  318. 


Borderline  intelligence,  79,  87  ff. 
Bow-knot,  test  of  tying,  196  jf. 
Brigham,  165,  166. 

Change,    test    of    making    change, 

240/. 

Childs,  H.  G.,  231,  298. 
Coaching,  HOjf. 
Code  test,  330 /. 
Color  naming,  163  jf. 
Combination  method,  171.   See  also 

Completion  test. 
Commissions,  172  ff. 
Comparison  of  lines,  151  ff. 
Completion  test,  179,  246,  289. 
Comprehension    questions,    157  ff., 

181 /.,  215 /.,  268  jf. 
Conditions    favorable    to    testing, 

121 /• 

Counting,  four  pennies,  154;  thirteen 
pennies,  180;  counting  backwards, 
213. 

Crime,  relation  to  feeble-minded- 
ness,  8  jf.;  cost  of,  12. 

Cuneo,  Irene,  51. 

Davenport,  C.  B.,  10. 

Definitions,  in  terms  of  use,  167; 
superior  to  use,  221;  of  abstract 
words,  281  Jf.  and  324  jf.  See  also 
Vocabulary  tests. 

"  Degenerate  "  families,  9  Jf. 

Delinquency,  relation  to  feeble- 
mindedness, 7  ff. 

Diamond,  test  of  copying  diamond, 
204. 

Differences,  test  of  finding,  199, 
313/. 

Digits.  See  Memory  for  digits. 


360 


INDEX 


Discrimination  of  forms,  152  ff. 
Dissected  sentences,  286  Jf. 
Distribution  of  intelligence,   65  ff., 

78  jf. 

Dougherty,  165,  166,  203. 
Drawing,  156,  204,  260. 
Dull  normals,  92  Jf. 
Dumville,  165,  166. 

Ebbinghaus,  289,  318. 
Emotion,  49. 
Enclosed  boxes,  327  Jf. 
Endowment,  4,  19  Jf. 
Environment,    influence    on    test, 

114/. 

Eugenics,  9Jf. 

Examination,  duration  of,  127  ff. 
Examiner,  qualifications  of,  124  Jf. 

Fables,  interpretation  of,  290  Jf. 

Fatigue,  influence  of,  on  test,  126  Jf. 

Feeble-minded,  proportion  of  school- 
children feeble-minded,  6. 

Feeble-mindedness,  value  of  tests 
for,  5  Jf.;  psychological  analysis, 
23;  definition,  80;  examples,  82  ff. 

Fernald,  G.  G.,  8. 

Fernald,  Grace,  56,  278,  280,  332. 

Fingers,  test  of  giving  number  of, 
189 /. 

Freeman,  Frank  N.,  280. 

Functions,  tested  by  Binet  scale, 
42  Jf. 

Galbreath,  Neva,  51. 

Galton,  328. 

General  intelligence,  42  Jf. 

Generalization,  tests  of,  298. 

Genius.  See  Superior  intelligence. 

Goddard,  H.  H.,  8,  106,  112,  154, 
156,  165,  173,  185,  190,  196,  203, 
206,  213,  234,  245,  251,  252,  259, 
264,  276,  285,  289,  319,  322,  323, 
332,  333,  339,  345. 

Grading,  value  of  intelligence  tests 
in,  16. 


Hall,  Gertrude,  280. 
Healy-Fernald,  56,  278,  280,  332. 
Heredity,  use  of  tests  in  the  study  of, 

19. 

Hill  folk,  10. 

Hollingworth.  Leta  S.,  71. 
Huey,  E.  B.,  197,  217,  234. 

Imagery,  195,  209,  321.  339. 

Induction  test,  310  Jf. 

Ingenuity  test,  346. 

Intelligence,  analysis  of,  see  remarks 

under  instructions  for  each  test; 

superior,  12  Jf.;  95  Jf.,  teachers' 

estimates  of,  13,  24,  26,  28,  75; 

general,    42   Jf.;     definitions    of, 

44 /. 
Intelligence    quotient,    53,    55,    63, 

65  Jf.;  validity  of,  68;  classification 

and  significance,  79  Jf.;  140 Jf. 

Jukes  family,  10. 

Kallikak  family,  9. 

Knollin,  H.  E.,  18,  51, 54,  63. 

Kohs,  S.  C.,  107  Jf. 

Kuhlmann,  F.,  56, 105, 153, 154, 156, 
165,  173,  185,  190,  193,  196,  206, 
214,  217,  234,  247,  251,  252,  259, 
264,  276,  280,  285,  289,  315,  319, 
322,  323,  327,  333,  839,  345. 

Language  comprehension,  143,  144. 
Limitations  of  the  Binet  scale,  48  Jf. 
Lombroso,  7. 
Lyman,  Grace,  51. 

Mason,  Otis.  347. 

Masselon,  245. 

Material  used  in  the  tests,  141. 

Memory,  for  sentences,  149  Jf.,  160, 
185,  332;  for  passages,  340;  for  de- 
signs, 260;  for  digits,  150, 159, 193, 
207,  242,  277,  301,  322,  329,  340, 
345. 

Mental  age,  39  Jf.;  effect  of  Stanford 


INDEX 


361 


revision  on,  62;  how  to  calculate, 
137 /. 

Mental  deficiency.  See  Feeble- 
mindedness. 

Meumann,  Ernst,  46,  106,  245, 
318. 

Moral  development,  dependence  of, 
on  intelligence,  11  jf. 

Nam  family,  10. 

Name,  test  of  giving  name,  147  ff. 
Naming  coins,  184  Jf.,  231. 
Naming  familiar  objects,  143  ff. 
Normals,  dull,  92  ff. 

Ordahl,  Dr.  George,  8. 
Ordahl,  Louise  Ellison,  8. 

Paper-cutting  test,  338. 

Physical  defects,  effects  of,  on  intelli- 
gence, 19. 

Physical  relations,  comprehension 
of,  333  jf. 

Physicians,  as  Binet  testers,  34. 

Pictures,  enumeration  of  objects  in, 
145;  description  of,  190  Jf.;  inter- 
pretation of,  302;  finding  omissions 
in,  178. 

Pointing  to  parts  of  body,  142  ff. 

Practical  judgment,  212. 

President  and  king,  giving  differ- 
ences between,  313. 

Problem  questions,  315  ff. 

Procedure,  necessity  of  uniformity 
in,  32jf.,  131  jf. 

Promotions,  on  basis  of  intelligence 
tests,  16  ff. 

Race  differences,  91. 
Range  of  testing,  129. 
Rapport,  124jf. 

Reading,  test  of  reading  for  memo- 
ries, 262. 

Record  booklet,  128. 
Recording  responses,  133  ff. 
Reliability  of  the  scale,  70  Jf .,  105  Jf. 


Repeated  tests,  112  jf. 

Retardation,  cost  of,  1,  13  jf.;  train- 
ing of  retarded  children,  4  ff.,  24 
Jf.,  73  Jf. 

Reversing  hands  of  clock,  321  ff. 

Rhymes,  test  of  finding,  248. 

Right  and  left,  175  ff. 

Rowe,  E.  P.,  165,  166,  277. 

Rowland,  Eleanor,  18. 

Scattering  of  successes,  134  ff. 
School  success  and  intelligence,  73  ff. 
Scoring,  132.    See  also  instructions 

for  scoring  each  test. 
Seclusion  during  test,  122. 
Sex,  test  of  giving,  146  ff. 
Sex  differences  hi  intelligence,  68  ff. 
Similarities,  test  of  finding,  217  Jf., 


Sixty  words,  272  jf. 

Social  class  and  intelligence,  72  jf., 
114  ff. 

Spearman,  C.,  definition  of  intelli- 
gence, 46. 

Special  classes,  5. 

Square,  test  of  copying,  155  Jf. 

Stamps,  test  of  counting  value  of, 
252. 

Standardization,  value  of,  30. 

Stanford  revision  of  the  Binet  scale, 
51  Jf. 

Stereotypy,  203. 

Stern,  W.,  46,  106,  118. 

Stigmata,  7. 

Structural  psychology,  43. 

Superior  intelligence,  tests  of  supe- 
rior children,  12  Jf.,  95  jf. 

Supplementary  information,  135. 

Teachers'  estimates  of  intelligence, 
13,  24,  26,  28,  75. 

Terman,  Lewis  M.,  63,  267,  298. 

Three  words,  test  of  using,  hi  a  sen- 
tence, 242  Jf. 

Time  orientation,  forenoon  and  after- 
noon, 187 jf.;  days  of  the  week, 


362 


INDEX 


205 /.;  giving  date,  234  ff.;  nam- 
ing months,  251  ff. 

Unemployment,  relation  of,  to  intel- 
ligence, 18. 

Validity  of  the  tests,  76 /. 

Vocabulary  tests,  224,  255,  281,  310, 
324,  338. 

Vocational  guidance,  use  of  intelli- 
gence tests  in,  17,  49. 


Volition,  49. 

Waddle,  Charles,  52. 

Wallin,  237. 

Weights,  comparison  of,  161,  236  ff. 

Williams,  Dr.  J.  Harold,  9,  54. 

Winch,  W.  H.,  165,  166. 

Writing  from  dictation,  231  ff. 

Yerkes,  R.  M.,  70. 


-i. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  •  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed 


THIS  I 


L  J 


Series  9482 


3  1205  00329  0614 


I IBBARY  FACILITY 


11.  s,  . 


